Krugman looks like a genius when standing next to a bag of rocks...

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.

Krugman is insane. The true reason we find our economy so fragile is the sub-prime mortgage mess created and propogated by the Clinton legislation supported by Democrats...who ultimately refused to recognize the toxic debt they were generating despite efforts by some Republicans and the Bush Administration to limit the practice.

On a side note, I bumped into Paul Krugman one late afternoon while walking to the Port Authority. He was standing by himself outside the NY Times building (no longer the possession of the New York Times due to financial idiocy by Pinch Sulzberger). I walked up to him without pause and asked him very matter of factly:

"Where is he?"

He looked at me confused and responded expectly.

"Where's who?"

I grinned my little grin...

"Why...the guy who carries your medication around for you?"

I went on my way having done my good deed for the day, and didn't even bother to take in his response.

Newton's Third Law of Motion...

From Gateway Pundit:

The New York Times confirmed yesterday that it killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign. The NY Times killed the investigation before the election that would have shown that Barack Obama’s campaign and the Far Left ACORN Organization were guilty of technical violations of campaign finance law.

From the unforgiving world of "reality."

If the doomsayers are right, control of New York Times Co. could be up for grabs in the next year or two.

My wish is that a substantial portion of the toilet paper stock is purchased by some other elitist Liberal Jackass (David Geffen) so he can lose his silk shirt as well.


______

Power Line Blog dissects Clark Hoyt's (New York Times, Public Editor) sorry excuse for an excuse...

Bird cage liner at the end of the internet...

PARIS — Will May 2009 mark the beginning of the end for the free, unfettered Internet?

From all the wailing on the Web — and the fist-pumping in some old-media redoubts — it might seem so.

In recent days, Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp., declared that he would end what he called a “malfunctioning” business: the free online newspaper. Other publishers, including The Guardian Media Group in Britain and The New York Times Co., which owns the International Herald Tribune, said they were examining ways to get readers to pay for digital news.

The red-headed stepchild of the New York Times (International Herald Tribune) has an article today lamenting the fact that putting up a "pay wall" to protect their content will not, likely, solve their financial woes.

Not one mention in the entire article about how their content could be improved to reflect a non-bias reporting...

Carry on, and continue sinking into the abyss.

The Duka Dimwits (Fort Dix terrorist plot)

Duka said he did not know how he was going to spread word about the case.

"I have to find a way," he said. "Nobody knows my sons better than I do. I know who they are."

That's easy...just ask the Philadelphia Inquirer to run a sob story "Bonfire of the Vanities" type piece like the one linked. After all, if the Inquirer had any problems throwing one together, they could take pointers from the Boston Globe's same shameless approach back in March.

Face it...the Fort Dix terrorist group was downright incompetent...but they were planning a terrorist attack. The whole defense was based on it being five kids mouthing off and waxing poetic. Of course, that wouldn't explain why they attempted to buy two machine guns from an informant. Three of the brothers got life in prison...deservedly. The media has no scruples or sense of ethics.

NYTimes...Dishonest to the core...

As part of that investigation, a senior F.B.I. agent recently came forward with what the inspector general’s office described as accusations of “significant misconduct” in the surveillance program, people with knowledge of the investigation said. Those accusations are said to involve whether the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism.

And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.

I lost count of the number of times that the New York Times referred to non-disclosed sources to write this tripe.

Also, the very last sentence clarifies that the Bush Administration blocked the effort. Sure, they included the language, but if this "journalist" is truly going to use the "inverted pyramid" format to write a story (important and clarifying information up front)...it should have been in the first paragraph...or the by-line. But, that would not serve their agenda.

On a side note...wasn't it National Intelligence Director Blair who said that the economic turmoil outpaced terrorism as the world's #1 concern. Why yes it was:

WASHINGTON: The new director of national intelligence told Congress that global economic turmoil and the instability it could ignite had outpaced terrorism as the most urgent threat facing the United States.

Hell, the entire Congressional body should be under surveillance in that regard. They caused it with their forced sub-prime fiasco. And, they continue to subsidize it by throwing money at the root problem instead of allowing the most egregious window licking businesses to fail.

Back to the original NY Times article. There isn't sufficient source back-up to even give this article a glance of consideration. However, assuming that there is a Congress"person" who had contact with a known Islamic extremist during a "fact finding mission"...I wonder who it would be. The sad point being that I could think of at least ten such folks off the top of my head that would fit the bill. One, I consider an extremist on their own accord...and likes to ride on pleasure yachts that challenge the Israeli navy.

The New York Times' stock can't bottom out fast enough...

A "journalist" said this...

Matthew Hoy (Hoystory) has a post today that refers to "angryjournalist.com." The best I can tell, angryjournalist.com is a community whine fest where alleged journalists post their gripes and moans. That, in an of itself is no big deal, I suppose. Everyone deserves a little space now and then to vent. However, Hoystory refers to a very specific post that reflects a telltale mirror of today's "big" media. The bias displayed indicates that some journalists (perhaps most) are not even aware of their own bias. They are THAT obtuse.

Here's my favorite part of the post:

I blame the public schools, frankly. They are not doing enough to teach about the UN, NGOs, and other international forums. They are not training the kids to become citizens of the world first and of the country they were randomly born in second. They are doing a disservice to the world community by over-emphasis on “American” things, Americentrism. It makes me sick. It makes me angry.

I'm quite sure this fellow doesn't even bother mouthing the words of the National Anthem at a ball game. He's too busy wondering why the team chose to fly a pennant flag instead of the United Nations rag.

Hoystory has the whole post, and some other good stuff...so check it out.

All hail Caesar...

(Todd Heisler/The New York Times)
After the meeting Mr. Obama held a news conference, inviting questions from Indian and Chinese journalists. Many reporters stood up and cheered afterward.

“Unless we are concerned about the education of all children and not just our children, not only may we be depriving ourselves of the next great scientist who’s going to find the next new energy source that saves the planet, but we also may make people around the world much more vulnerable to anti-American propaganda.”

In a rare show of emotion from the international press, many in the room stood up and cheered after Mr. Obama was done.

There is no media bias...that thrives on agenda. No...there is no media at all in that they are merely an extension of Liberal doctrine.

"I'm confident the standards to which we hold ourselves and our work will distinguish us..."

Kate at Small Dead Animals is in a juxtaposting type of mood.

She links to a journalism student at the University of Georgia (Grady College):

Claire Rock, journalism major - "Bloggers no replacement for the pros"

Personally, I get a kick out of the true ironic ignorance of young people today. I say that as a blogger with a Journalism Degree.

Where's the irony, you ask? Well, Grady College, which actually has a rather solid reputation for teaching journalism as well as advertising and public relations, has conformed their curriculum to include the world of electronic gizmos and gadgets. Here's a listing of blogs held by Grady College staff just to get you started.


Claire Rock opines in her gripe du jour that:

Many blogs facilitate discussion of important public issues and are positive additions to the marketplace of ideas. But many feature banter - often biased or untruthful - that skews public understanding.

I would have to agree. For example, how about this Grady College staffer:

Dr. Bruce Klopfenstein
I'm a professor of new media in the Grady College at the University of Georgia. I am pursuing funding for addressing climate change using the new medium of interactive television as well as other research projects.

Biased? Untruthful?...Skews public understanding? You be da Judge. My favorite is the correlation between Global Warming and Kidney stones.

Claire drops the golden egg right here:

I'm confident the standards to which we hold ourselves and our work will distinguish us, and professional journalism, from the clutter and chatter of the Internet.

It sure will, and has. Oh...wait...

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- The New York Times Co. agreed to sell the space it occupies in its Manhattan headquarters for $225 million to pay debt as print advertising revenue declines.

It isn't just the internet and the concept of "immediate gratification" that is killing print media. It is the outright bias and agenda driven editing. It is the opinionated tweaking that infests hard news stories. It is the constant spiking of stories detrimental to the "cause."

It is journalism professors at Grady College using a college server to promote unproven views on global warming while soliciting funds to propogate those same views. It is journalism students admiring their new white sneakers while standing in a big pit of mud and paying for the privilege as those along the edge of the pit point and laugh.

A more restrained manner?

WASHINGTON: Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Barack Obama on Monday ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

But Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation that had provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He pledged to use a modest approach when doing so, but said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

You can do that...but...you know...don't do that.

I'm beginning to think our current sitting president is a bit wishy-washy. It's either that...or he truly believes that the vast majority of Americans hold the metality and intellect of second graders.

The signing statement approach became necessary for Reagan, because the Democrat heavy congress would continuously stuff in unconstitutional ryders and entries into each bill. He was forced to add signing statements to assure that important legislation didn't sit in "limboland" or require a veto because some moron from Massachusetts added language that would counter the "right to own guns" or exercise free speech...etc. As you will recall, the United States was in a nasty recession thanks to Friar Carter's touch. It required action and the application of supply side economics to bring us back to prosperity.

George W. Bush used signing statements more routinely because the processing of the Patriot Act, and shoring up our internal security became a priority, and portions of that Bill could, indeed, be perceived as unconstitutional. In short, it is the closest we, as a country, have gotten to a "line item veto." The amusing thing here is that President Obama is questioning the legitimacy so as to retain the support of the all powerful "American Bar Association."

The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers," calling on Bush and all future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.

But, out of the other side of his mouth, President Obama is telling us that he plans on using the same tool in his presidency.

In his memorandum, Obama wrote: "Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire legislation."

Obama's policy directive was consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign. Responding to a Boston Globe questionnaire about executive power, he criticized Bush's aggressive use of signing statements as an abuse, but also said that he would use them, too, albeit in a more restrained manner.

Let's correct the journalist's obvious bias here...shall we? Here...try this:

President Obama is going to use the signing statement as well. Only, he's going to use it to promote his agenda...and therefore, it is warranted...and not an abuse.

Personally, I don't think President Obama would recognize the US Constitution if it came up and bit him on the a$$.

Associated Press carrying the water...

Associated Press Headline today:

NYC says street homelessness down from past years

It's like clockwork. When a Democrat takes the highest office, all of a sudden homelessness drops.

This is a disingenuous, however. Homelessness has not dropped. In fact, in recent months it has shot through the roof due to the foreclosures in the area. This survey only refers to people sleeping in the actual street (or subways, Port Authority bathrooms etc). Personally, I haven't noticed a reduction in those at all. The same characters are at their assigned places every morning and evening that I can see.

The city's estimate was from a street survey across New York's five boroughs conducted on a specified night. Volunteers looked for homeless people sleeping on the streets, and decoys were planted to test the accuracy of the head count.

Ah...volunteers...and they fail to tell you when the survey took place on that "single night." Here's a clue. If you do the survey in the summer time, the figures are higher as opposed to when the temperature is Lowwwwwww.

The number of homeless people on New York City streets declined 30 percent from last year, thanks to revamped agency policies, the city's Department of Homeless Services said Wednesday.

"Revamped policies" is a euphemism for throwing money at the problem despite having none to throw. New York just settled a law suit back in September 2008 on what defines a "homeless" person or family.

The main sticking point in the case over the years has been whether a family is “homeless.” Virtually all the families in the system are single-mother households, many headed by very young women or teenagers. These young unwed mothers often live with their own single mothers, who themselves usually occupy public housing or rent-controlled apartments. At some point, grandmother, mother, and grandchildren decide they’ve had enough family togetherness, and the younger single mother applies to the city’s homeless-services department for her own city-subsidized apartment. The second-generation single mother and her lawyers claim that she is “homeless”; the city maintains that she has available housing, even if it is more crowded than an apartment of her own would be. This scenario has many possible variants: the single mother may be living with friends or other relatives, or she may be facing eviction from her own apartment but have another possible apartment—that of friends or relatives—theoretically available to her. In almost none of the cases has the shelter-seeking mother literally lost her home through an emergency like a natural disaster. Her housing situation, while crowded, is usually no worse than that of immigrants who may live five to a room and sleep in rotating shifts.

That's a fantastic new policy (sarcasm). My main gripe is how the Associated Press used a headline that really doesn't tell the story. A better headline would have been:

"Why our city is broke"

Not getting the picture...

The pictures of war are an integral part of the storytelling of these great conflicts. And in a democratic society, people have a right to see these images and newspapers have an obligation to show readers both the good and bad that combat produces. That's because the cost of war — though borne most heavily by those who are killed and their grieving relatives — is exacted from all of us. We all have a right to know, and visualize, the ultimate price that some of the men and women America sends into battle are forced to pay.

By allowing the Pentagon to establish the rules for photographing the most telling evidence of the human cost of war, news organizations have abdicated a significant part of their reporting duty to those who manage America's war machine.

The nation's news media are not as focused on defending their "right to bear witness to the range of experiences that come out of the horror of war" because they are more concerned with their own survival, says Kenneth Irby, leader of the Visual Journalism Group at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.

But reporting is the most important part of a newspaper's franchise. The decision on whether, and how, to portray a war's greatest victims should be made by the journalists not the military.

Sure...welcome to Utopia, where every journalist is the epitome of upstanding, non-bias honesty.

Shall we discuss the ability of wire photogs having unprecedented access to terrorist slayings in advance of them occurring? Should we discuss the "paper of record" releasing State secrets like they are Wal-mart inserts...or would you just like to do a full 180 and discuss how today's President tossed journalists off his campaign plane when they wrote a critical analysis of his rhetoric. Your expert in Visual Journalism seems to think that the nation's news media is more concerned about their own survival.

Praising the current administration on their compromise in allowing the photography of military coffins is pure hypocrisy when you consider the NY Post and Washington Times getting extricated from the Obama campaign entourage due to actual examination of his promises. Where was the outrage in the general media then?

One of the comments to this DeWayne Wickham's USA Today blog post provides an even better example of alterior motives on display:

That rule came into being because of press cheap shots after the raid on Panama (1989). The network news person was interviewing President Bush on the phone. They were asking the President how he thought progress is, and he said, "better than we expected". They gave him more opportunities to say how well things were going. While they were doing that, they had a split-screen to show coffins being loaded onto a transport plane. They set it up for obvious reasons.

There seems to be a disconnect for these "journalists." The newspapers are not failing (in flying colors) just because of the internet. They are failing because they are not trusted as a news service. Opinion seeps into hard news pieces. Editors spike stories detrimental to their own ideology. They act as managers, when they indeed are servants.

_______________

UPDATE:

You know, I would be totally incompetent if I didn't, at least, mention the whole gambit of staged photos that hit the wire (especially when Hamas is involved, and AP, Reuters, and Agence France Presse are snapping the shutter).

While I'm at it...I would be a dolt not to mention how easy it is to dupe the media in reference to faked photos (fauxtography).

Word still elusive to the Press--- "DEMOCRAT"

About a dozen county contractors have donated more than $100,000 combined to Lehigh County Executive Don Cunningham's campaign war chest while receiving ''no-bid'' contracts worth more than $3 million, a Morning Call analysis of county and campaign finance records shows.

One of those contracts went to Computer Aid Inc., of Allentown, whose president has donated a total of $17,000 to Cunningham's campaign fund in the past four years.

In that time, Computer Aid Inc. has been paid more than $1.5 million under a contract to manage the county's information technology department.

In May the contract was extended for three years, with increases each year. Six months later, company President Anthony Salvaggio wrote checks for $10,500 to Cunningham's campaign fund.

The first order of business is assisting the ever predictable media in finding that elusive little word..."DEMOCRAT." How they keep losing it is mind-boggling. This is an above-the-fold front page story in The Morning Call where the subject is a DEMOCRAT who holds high aspirations of being Pennsylvania's next Governor. Not once is his party affiliation mentioned in the entire article. HE'S A DEMOCRAT.

It is nice to see that the Republicans in the state aren't all a bunch of defeatist pansies. That's the only way this article sees the light of day in the Tribune Company owned paper. Someone had to apply a little pressure from the "right" side of the aisle.

Computer Aid is not the only contractor to contribute to Cunningham's war chest since his first run for county office in 2005, state campaign finance and county vendor records show.

The larger donors include engineering consultant McTish Kunkel and Associates, whose principals donated $28,500 since 2005; The Philadelphia Trust Co., whose employees contributed $13,600; and Concord Public Financial Advisors, whose principals gave $8,500.

Those firms received no-bid contracts worth more than $300,000 during that same time. Cunningham and his top administrators say none of the contracts was the result of pay to play.

No-bid contracts are a joke to start with...but since Don Cunningham is a DEMOCRAT with abitious goals...we should just take him at his word...right?

______________________

RELATED:

Another misplaced word by the media...they need a box.

Newspapers still missing elusive word...

Wash Po News-weak...

The Washington Post Co.'s reeling newspaper and magazine divisions stumbled again in the fourth quarter, extending an earnings slump that would have been even more disconcerting if not for the stability of the company's education and cable TV businesses.

The publisher of The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine said Wednesday that it made $18.8 million, or $2.01 per share, during the final three months of last year. That represented a 77 percent drop from net income of $82.9 million, or $8.71 per share, in the same quarter a year earlier.

They forgot to include the part about this occurring in an election year (in which Election Day fell inside this fiscal period). They, also, forgot to include the fact that their majority readership falls within the demographic of which you would expect an increased customer base in such a time frame.

Or, perhaps, the Washington Post, and Newsweek has accumulated all the fringe far Left readers available, and their continued bias, misrepresentations, and fawning over a favored candidate has moved them from all encompassing media outlet to a niche pigeon hole.

Or...just maybe...there was a sudden onslaught of disease that decimated the pet birds in this country during the last quarter. I know the fish market is hurting due to environmentalists...

Cancer is racist...

Blacks are more likely to develop cancer and die from the disease than any other group, according to a report released today. Black patients also live a shorter time after diagnosis than others.

Death rates have fallen in recent decades for all groups, and the gap between the races has fluctuated over the years. Yet the gap between blacks and whites is just as wide today as it was in 1981, report co-author Ahmedin Jemal says.

Cue up the old joke:

"EARTH KILLER ASTEROID TO HIT US TOMORROW...ALL LIFE WILL DIE...WE ARE ALL DOOMED...women and minorities hardest hit."

In a groundbreaking 2004 study, Bach showed that the doctors who treated blacks were less likely to be board-certified and often lacked crucial resources, such as access to diagnostic imaging tests and specialists.

Blacks also are more likely to live in poverty and have low educational levels, Jemal says.

Education makes a huge difference in survival for all races, the report shows. For both blacks and whites, cancer death rates among those with a high school education or less are about twice the rates of those who have gone to college. Yet blacks still have higher death rates than whites, even when they have the same level of education, the report shows.

Blacks are less likely to be screened for colorectal cancer and are more likely than whites to be overweight and sedentary, which can increase the risk of developing many kinds of cancers, the report shows.

Same ole schtick...even in Hopey McChangeland.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

Recent Republican losses in Pennsylvania have been spurred by defections from among the party's more affluent and better-educated voters.

One of the strongest recent currents in Pennsylvania politics has been a shift of registered voters from Republican to Democrat. A new survey suggests that this change has been led disproportionately by some of the GOP's more upscale members, estranged by the Bush administration and the unpopular war in Iraq.

Muhlenberg College's Institute of Public Opinion looked at a sample of the hundreds of thousands of former Republicans who have swelled the ranks of Democrats over the last two federal election cycles.

In May 2006, just months before an election in which the GOP lost four House seats along with Rick Santorum's Senate seat, Democrats held a registration lead of roughly 550,000. By last November, as President Barack Obama was carrying the state by the widest margin of any White House contender in decades, the Democratic advantage had grown to 1.2 million voters.

Not a single mention in the whole article addressing the media's influence on this whopping switch of allegiance. Not a peep concerning the bias shown and admitted to be pro-Democrat and Anti-Republican (even more so Anti-Bush...which was a catalyst per the participants in the survey).

There is no reference to media bias in the survey because the Institute of Public Opinion chose not to include any references to it in their study.

Garbage in...Garbage out...

The missing quotes...

Daschle apologizes for $128K tax error

Shouldn't the word "Error" in this headline be in quotes? Daschle says it was an error. However, why should we believe him?

Has any journalist uncovered confirmation that it was an error? Why doesn't the headline read..."Daschle apologizes for trying to slip one by the IRS?"

Icy slope of enabling by the media...

CNN was touting praise for the Obama Administration in reference to the current winter storm crisis down in Kentucky (and surrounding states) mere hours after the difficulties became apparent. They just couldn't wait to pile on the positive evaluations of response time and all around greatness...

LOUISVILLE, Kentucky (CNN) — Kentucky’s governor is praising the Obama administration’s prompt reaction to the fierce wintry weather that slammed his state.

“They really hit the ground running,” said Steve Beshear, interviewed by CNN. “They’re working very hard to get all the equipment and supplies here that we need.”

Crews have been working to restore power and water service to hundreds of thousands of people. Beshear said that while he realizes “nothing moves fast enough,” he said the federal assistance “has been a great help to us so far.”

Beshear, a Democrat, explained that when the first wave of bad weather came through on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, officials realized that they needed additional help.

Except...that doesn't seem to be too accurate:

Has anyone seen FEMA lately? It seems we have people dying by the dozens in the midwest, where they’ve been freezing to death for a few days. Local officials are calling out the Federal government for its notable lack of response.( Via: Sundries Shack)

This over-zealous cheerleading by the media is now approaching the level of "dangerous." We can sit here and speculate that "President Obama" was not a good idea...and the windstorm enabling by the media during the campaign was...unfair...unprofessional...and an affront to true democracy within the Republic.

However, now we are looking at something a bit more egregious...and it just may be costing lives in the process. Face it...politicians use the media as a barometer in determination to whether they need to get off their rather bulbous posteriors and actually do something. If CNN gives a pass to the Obama Administration...and takes DEMOCRAT Governor Beshear at his word...the rest of the ingrate politicians will sit back assured that all is well.

All is NOT well...Ice-battered Kentucky pleads for help from storm

Media Bias is the new black...

Sarah Palin's $150,000 clothing spree turns heads left and right
USA Today 10/23/2008
The total bill might make Joe Six-Pack spew his brew, but to image experts, the $150,000 that the Republican National Committee has spent on wardrobing Sarah Palin and her family since she was tapped as the GOP's vice presidential candidate isn't shocking — in fact, it's arguably necessary.

Not finished yet...here's another hit piece from USA Today noting, once again, the cost of the wardrobe without providing details...

USA Today 11/11/2008
McCain never directly addressed the embarrassing controversy over Palin's expensive campaign wardrobe purchased by the Republican National Committee, or statements by unidentified McCain aides who reportedly have said she was not prepared on foreign policy or other issues. The Alaska governor has said in interviews she did not ask for, or want, the $150,000-plus wardrobe for her and her family.

Compare and Contrast...

US Today 1/21/08
Michelle Obama favors a variety of designers, some of them established, some of them as new and up-and-coming as Mrs. O herself. Here's a look at some designers who have dressed her:

Michelle wore: A sleeveless red-and-black dress on election night in Chicago's Grant Park, which was mostly panned. Also, a camel-and-black color-block coat and skirt for the concert at the Lincoln Memorial on Sunday. Narciso Rodriguez

Michelle wore: Red floral print silk kimono dress accessorized with Erickson Beamon broaches at the neckline, worn at Democratic National Convention. Thakoon (Panichgul)

What Michelle wore: A cigar-tube-shaped jersey tunic and matching pants in black, with an elaborate necklace by Tom Binns, worn at a New York fashion world fundraiser in June 2008. Isabel Toledo

Michelle wore: Four dresses purchased from his spring 2009 collection, including a raw-silk dress made with hand-embroidered rosettes with French knots worn for an interview on a Barbara Walters special in November. Jason Wu

Michelle wore: Multiple outfits, often in striking colors, over several years. Most recently, a purple silk crepe sheath with a black Azzedine Alaïa belt worn at Democratic National Convention; and a red silk crepe sheath with a pleated neckline worn when the Obamas toured the White House with the Bushes after the election. Maria Pinto

Oh…I’m sorry…I missed the negative reference to price tags and elitism. What? No one spewed their brew? What office was she running for again? I missed it.

Here's the point. I could care less if Michelle Obama wears a $20,000 potato sack or not. I just wanted to point out the absolute bias of USA Today. There is a whole feature today detailing the designers she prefers...so I doubt this is even the complete list. What a difference a political ideology makes.

Past Performance breeds a cynic...

Morbid?..HELL YES. This is the photograph that The Guardian chose to use in support of the United Nations warning Israel about war crimes. The caption underneath the photo reads thus:

The body of a girl who was found in the rubble of her destroyed house following an Israeli air strike on a house in Zeitoun Photograph: Mohammed Abed/AFP/Getty Images

Can we trust The Guardian to be delivering hard news without agenda driven opinion. Of course not. They are unapologetically leftist and if they bent any further towards favoring Hamas, they would require a lumbar fusion with fixation.

For example...who took the photograph?

Mohammed Abed took it.

Who is Mohammed Abed?

He is the same individual who took this photograph with the following caption.

Palestinian guerilla fighters prepare a homemade bomb in Rafah refugee camp south of the Gaza Strip. (AFP/Mohammed Abed)(h/t Backspin)

That's some pretty good access Mr. Abed has as a lowly AFP stringer. Why, those high school kids working on their science project didn't even hear him sneak up and snap the pic...

And, where do you suppose Mr. Abed's personal opinions on the conflict reside?

VERJEE (voice-over): He's looking at a breathtaking image he's just made where the whole Muslim world is represented. But Palestinian photographer Mohammed Abed is between two worlds. Here in Mecca he's both journalist and pilgrim. His life and livelihood is Gaza. He says he's had enough.

MOHAMMED ABED, PHOTOGRAPHER: I need to change my mood. Every time I shoot the blood, it stretches between Israeli and Arab and Palestinian and Gaza. Ok, I should be upset but this makes a problem for me in my mind, in my emotions you know.

VERJEE: He's emotional in Mecca, too, he says. But the difference is he's anxious to cover this story and be a part of it.

ABED: I saw millions of people going around the Kaaba with the same clothes, the same chants, men and women together. It stopped me in my tracks, he says. Seeing the people circling the Kaaba really moved me. He says he was so awestruck at first, he couldn't even shoot. When he finally did, his pictures of the Kaaba ended up in the paper.

VERJEE: Out on the streets and on the marble of the grand mosque, Mohammed aims his camera at the faces he rarely gets to shoot. Like this old man. Or these women who wanted to pose. But it's not all smooth outside the grand mosque. He runs into police, ever-ready to pounce on photographers who aren't allowed near the Kaaba. A few feet away, he sees fellow Palestinians.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know me?

VERJEE: Taking pictures of them makes him smile. The holiest day of the hajj pilgrimage is day two, the day of Arafat. Mohammed puts down his camera and utters a silent prayer alongside almost 3 million Muslims. He has a special plea.

ABED: I want to pray to the Palestinian people to finish the occupation and finish the clashes with Israel. This is the important thing I like.

VERJEE: Mohammed tries to cleanse his spirit here and erase the images of loss and pain in Gaza and replace them with this.

Well, he's a Palestinian, and "his life and livelihood is Gaza" according to the transcription of a CNN report of haj back in 2007. He freely admits that when he shoots "the blood" it stretches between Israeli and Arab and Palestinian and Gaza. I assume that this is an interpretation suggesting the opposite of coming together. Regardless, it's hard to believe that the photographer isn't a bit more invested in the story for a particular participant rather than a non-bias observer.

Is the child in The Guardian's photograph really dead?

I won't take Mr. Abed's or The Guardian's word on that. The AFP has a history of agenda drive photo staging (h/t Jawa Report). If the child is really dead, should we take The Guardian's or Mr. Abed's word that the Israelis were responsible? Neither hold any credibility based on past performance and behavior. So even if The Guardian's story and Mr. Abed's photograph are legitimately represented...they have compromised the effort in the past.

So, again...I am forced to look at the photograph at the top of the post...read the accompanying article...and conclude that "I DON'T BELIEVE A WORD OF IT..." Mohammed Abed, The Guardian, and the AFP have, really, given me no choice in the matter...

Hypocrisy with a BIG "H"...

President Bush turned Brooklyn's Isaac Toussie into a poster boy for outrageous presidential pardons, granting, then rescinding, the order in 24 hours.

The mystery is how the administration ignored Toussie and his father's background - a tale of payoff and corruption allegations spanning more than 45 years - in pardoning the son for a massive housing scam.

TWO WORDS to the NY Daily News..."Bill Ayers."

Bush recinded the pardon within 24 hours of issuance. We're still waiting for the media to peel the onion on TERRORIST Ayers. The New York Times not only gave Ayers a forum (after the election) to spout pure lies in an effort to polish his image...they refused to print a well written and knowledgable rebuttal that showed Ayers' words to be a collection of garbage.

The Bush administration corrected its error in less than a day.