Monday, 26 October 2009


Ken Berwitz

Want to see an excellent deconstruction of an example of media bias?  Well, here it is.

The bias is from Tim Craig, writing for the Washington Post.  The deconstruction is from Tim Graham of (well, at least the Tim's cancel out):

Black Churches Rally Against 'Gay Marriage' in DC, But WaPo Headline Claims 'Both Sides Mobilize'


By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
October 26, 2009 - 08:49 ET

The Washington Post has a funny way of covering conservative protests. Take Sunday's protest against "gay marriage," in which black churches have rallied to insist the people vote by referendum instead of letting the D.C. council dictate. The headline is "Both sides mobilize in same-sex marriage." Doesn't the reader assume that means that both sides mobilized.... yesterday? This headline would not happen in a story on a liberal protest.

Post reporter Tim Craig suggests distaste for the protesters in the first few words: "A small but noisy group of protesters, many bused in from churches," rallied Sunday. This would not happen in a story on a liberal protest. Size would almost be irrelevant. (And their transportation wouldn't be a negative.)

Craig counted "about 150 opponents of same-sex marriage" in the second paragraph. Earlier this month, when hard-left protesters rallied outside the White House to get the U.S. out of Afghanistan, the Post waited 25 paragraphs to tell readers only 176 people showed up.

They put that rally on page one, not page one of Metro (where yesterday's protest landed).

Craig added: "Sunday's protesters chanted, 'Let the people vote!' but many participants live in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs." This did not happen when the Post glorified illegal aliens protesting. Their illegal status was irrelevant.

Let's understand that, although Washington Post writer Tim Craig appears to make his support for gay marriage pretty evident, that is not the issue here (if it were I would be on his side). 

The issue is how the story is put together when it clashes with the Washington Post's point of view, versus how a similar kind of story was handled when the Post agreed with it.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.


Ken Berwitz

I'm not one to trust political polls, and I certainly don't trust this one (Among my reasons:  I don't know the polling organization, there are too few people surveyed, and it was conducted on behalf of a group that very much wants the results it got). 

But in the interest of reporting what is going on in this fascinating special election, here is the story:

Hoffman Surges Into Lead in NY-23
New CFG Poll shows Hoffman 31.3%, Owens 27.0%, Scozzafava 19.7%


Washington - A poll released today by the Club for Growth shows Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman surging into the lead in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district to replace John McHugh, the former congressman who recently became Secretary of the Army.

The poll of 300 likely voters, conducted October 24-25, 2009, shows Conservative Doug Hoffman at 31.3%, Democrat Bill Owens at 27.0%, Republican Dede Scozzafava at 19.7%, and 22% undecided. The poll's margin of error is +/- 5.66%. No information was provided about any of the candidates prior to the ballot question.

This is the third poll done for the Club for Growth in the NY-23 special election, and Doug Hoffman is the only candidate to show an increase in his support levels in each successive poll. The momentum in the race is clearly with Hoffman.

"Hoffman now has a wide lead among both Republicans and Independents, while Owens has a wide lead among Democrats. Dede Scozzafava's support continues to collapse, making this essentially a two-candidate race between Hoffman and Owens in the final week," concluded Basswood Research's pollster Jon Lerner, who conducted the poll for the Club.

As pointed out earlier, I won't rely on a poll like this.  But could it be true that Douglas Hoffman is surging ahead?  Sure it could. 

A spate of important Republicans, including Sarah Palin and Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, has come out strongly in support of Hoffman over the past few days. It is easy to see how their endorsements could push him forward, especially in this mostly-Republican district.

What a kick in the backside it would be if Republican/conservative voters stuck their tongues out (that's the nice way of saying it) at the national Republican apparatus and elected the candidate who most reflects their views, not a liberal Democrat who is posing as a Republican like Dede Scozzafava.


Ken Berwitz

The Yankees defeated the Angels last night, to win the American League pennant.  They will play the reigning champion Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series, starting Wednesday night.

Here is an excellent column by Philadelphia Inaquirer sportswriter Jim Salisbury, which sets us up for this "Amtrak series":

Jim Salisbury: Pettitte's perfect finish

POSTED: October 26, 2009


By Jim Salisbury

Inquirer Baseball Columnist

NEW YORK - After Saturday night's rainout, New York Yankees manager Joe Girardi could have gone with CC Sabathia in Game 6 of the American League Championship Series last night.

You couldn't have blamed Girardi if he had chosen to use his ace against the Los Angeles Angels.

Sabathia is one of the most dominant pitchers in the sport. The Yankees spent $161 million on him because they needed someone to pitch big games, the kind of games that deliver championships.

But Girardi wasn't about to fiddle with his rotation, not when he knew it was Andy Pettitte's turn to pitch.

Pettitte made his manager look smart. His 61/3 innings of one-run ball backboned the Yankees' 5-2 win, gave them their 40th AL pennant, and put them back in the World Series for the first time since 2003.

The Yankees, with their high-powered, home-run-hitting offense, will host the Phillies, with their high-powered, home-run-hitting offense, in Game 1 of the World Series on Wednesday night.

The Yanks led the AL in homers and runs. The Phils led the National League in homers and runs.

Two Thunder Road teams working on a dream. Buckle those chin straps. This should be fun.

It sure was fun last night for the Yankees, who rallied for three runs in the fourth inning, two coming on a single by Johnny Damon, then scored two more in the eighth to put it away.

"This is a tremendous accomplishment," Damon said amid a raucous champagne celebration in the clubhouse. "But we have one more mountain to climb. We still need to get four more wins. Philly is a tough team. We know they're a tough team, but, hopefully, we'll be victorious. It should be a great World Series."

The route to victory last night started with Pettitte, the captain of the clinch.

He established himself as a big-game pitcher in Game 5 of the 1996 World Series, and Girardi, the Yanks' catcher at the time, saw it all. Then 24, Pettitte outdueled Atlanta's John Smoltz as the Yankees won a 1-0 thriller to take a three-games-to-two lead in the Series.

After that game, Pettitte smiled and said: "I think it's destiny." He was right. The Yanks won it all in Game 6. They went on to win three more World Series in the next four seasons and Pettitte was part of all of those teams.

All these years later, Pettitte is 37. He has survived the wrath of George Steinbrenner, who ordered him traded in 1999, only to scotch a deal to the Phillies at the last minute. He has survived the dishonor that went with his being listed on the Mitchell Report, baseball's scorecard on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the game.

Two seasons after apologizing for his use of human growth hormone, Pettitte stood on top of the game again last night.

The win was Pettitte's 16th in postseason play, pushing him ahead of Smoltz for the most all time.

It was his fifth win in a clinching postseason game, also a record.

Pettitte left the game leading, 3-1, with one out in the seventh inning. Joba Chamberlain got the next two outs, before Girardi went to the best closer ever, Mariano Rivera, for the final six outs.

Rivera allowed a run in the eighth - This just in: The guy is human! - but got the job done in the ninth.

When it was over, the Yankees danced on the field. One year after failing to make the postseason for the first time in 13 seasons, they have opened the new Yankee Stadium with a trip to the World Series.

Ninety miles to the south, Phillies players surely watched on television as the Yankees partied last night.

The Phils have been idle since Wednesday, when they clinched their second straight NL title.

During their own celebration at Citizens Bank Park, the Phillies didn't even try to hide their desire to play the Yankees in the World Series.

Everyone from club president David Montgomery to reliever Scott Eyre to pitcher Pedro Martinez said they wanted to play the Yankees, who led the majors with 103 wins this season.

Now the Phillies get the chance. It is a chance to measure themselves against the majors' best team in 2009, a chance, lest we forget, to join the ranks of the elite with a second straight World Series title.

Lefty Cliff Lee is primed to pitch Game 1 of the series against Sabathia, his former Cleveland teammate. Both won Cy Young Awards with the Indians and were traded away.

Lefty Cole Hamels, the king of October last year, will start one of the first three games for the Phils.

The Yanks won't be afraid of either pitcher. They were 36-18 against lefthanded starters this season and led the majors with a .286 batting average against lefties. This postseason, they have outscored opponents, 48-25.

This World Series will have a little bit of everything. Sluggers? They don't get much better than Ryan Howard and Alex Rodriguez. Star shortstops? Jimmy Rollins and Derek Jeter ain't bad. Big-time closers? Rivera is the best ever, and Brad Lidge had a season for the ages last year.

It's not the West (Dodgers) meets East (Yankees) World Series that Major League Baseball might have been rooting for.

But it's the one Phillies fans were rooting for. Yankees vs. Phillies.

All aboard the Amtrak train. This should be fun.

How do I feel about the World Series?  Here is my two-word answer:

Go Yanks!


Ken Berwitz

When it comes to Afghanistan, we do not have a President Obama, we have a President Dithers. 

The reason?  Because, as we approach November, he has been dithering SINCE AUGUST on whether to accept his own commander's urgent recommendation for something like 40,000 more troops.  Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform remain at increased risk, as proven by the higher and higher casualty figures in that sorry part of the world.

Dick Cheney, who, apart from 8 years as arguably the most engaged Vice President in this country's history was also our Secretary of Defense, plainly laid the facts out for Mr. Obama last week. 

But there is a problem.  The Democratic demonization machine, which worked so effectively against Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and so many others, has also done its work on Mr. Cheney.  It is political poison to agree with him. 

So how do they get around it?  Here's how, via an Associated Press article quoted by Steve Gilbert of  The bold print is his, the underlining is mine:

Lawmakers Dither Over Afghan Decision

October 25th, 2009


From the memory deficient Associated Press:

Lawmakers split on timing of Afghan decision

By Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON Top lawmakers sparred Sunday over the timing of President Barack Obamas decision on how to move ahead in Afghanistan, with Republicans urging a quick move to boost troop levels and Democrats counseling patience.


In partisan displays, senators generally agreed on the need to support whatever Afghan government emerges from a Nov. 7 run-off election between President Hamid Karzai and challenger Abdullah Abdullah. But they differed on exactly how to do that and when.


Republicans said Obama must sign off soon on a recommendation from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to substantially increase the number of American troops there by 40,000. Democrats warned against a hasty decision on any increase


None of the Republicans would second a claim made last week by former Vice President Dick Cheney that Obama is "dithering" in making a decision, but they agreed that continued delay would endanger the 68,000 U.S. soldiers now on the ground in Afghanistan.


"I would never want to call my president dithering," Hatch said. He stressed, though, that "they need these troops, there is no question about it. Were exposing them without the proper help that they have just got to have. I think its a mistake."


Distancing himself from Cheney, McCain also said he "wouldnt use that language." But, he added, "The sooner we implement the strategy the more we will able to ensure their (troops) safety."


Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, lashed out at Cheneys criticism, which came in a speech on Wednesday while accepting an award from a conservative national security group.


"I thought that comments of the former vice president were totally out of bounds," said Levin, D-Mich. "I dont think he has any credibility left with the American people in any event. But I think it is really wrong. The president needs to make the right decision."


Using the Afghan elections as an excuse to delay the decision on sending more troops is simply preposterous.


As the article notes, everyone claims to agree that the US needs to support whatever Afghan government emerges from a Nov. 7 run-off election. So what do the Afghan elections have to do with this decision?


Are we trying to tell Afghanistan that we will not support them if they dont vote for the party we want? We seem to recall Mr. Obama lecturing us about how the US had to stop imposing its values on other countries. 


No, the delay will serve no purpose, except to strengthen the Taliban. Which is probably why we are having the delay.


Our politicians and media masters are arguing over whether it was rude to accuse Mr. Obama of dithering while are soldiers are at risk.


It is surreal.

Other than Steve's unwarranted, lamentable, suggestion that President Obama may intentionally be aiding and abetting the Taliban, his piece hits the nail on the head.

If this is a war of necessity for the United States, as Mr. Obama told us in so many words, than it is irrelevant what government is put in place.  It remains a war of necessity for the United States.

And what about the transparency of people like Republicans Hatch and McCain, and Democrat Levin, in first blowing off Cheney, and then telling us why he is right?  Read that underlined section again and see for yourself.  What profiles in courage these guys are.

So what is the real reason for President Dithers to act this way?  Sadly, the greatest likelihood (in my opinion, anyway) is that he cannot order more troops until after the elections on November 3 because, if he does, he will disincent his hardline left wing base from coming to the polls and supporting Democrats. 

Doing so could have a material affect on the New Jersey gubernatorial race (where Mr. Obama has been a major component of Democrat Jon Corzine's campaign), the 23rd congressional district race in New York (where third party conservative Douglas Hoffman has a serious chance to win) and the 10th congressional district in which Republican David Harmer has a serious (if unlikely) chance to beat Democrat John Garamendi in what should be an eminently safe Bay Area seat.

The President dithers, our soldiers suffer, and Obama's politics-over-all-else priority reigns as the key reason.  

Like him or don't, would George Bush, who took a daily tidal wave of hatred virtually every day of his presidency, have jeopardized our troops this way for political gain? 

That's worth thinking about.


Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering what is occupying President Obama's time while he dithers about sending the troops to Afghaninstan that his commanding general urgently asked for in August, here are three links from that should give you clue:

Obama plays more golf in 9 months than Bush did in nearly three years...
Troops hope Afghan sacrifices not in vain...
Morale dips...

No decision on the troops, but plenty of time for golf.  No wonder morale is going south.


That loud and clear enough?


Ken Berwitz

Here is a very good analysis of the war President Obama and his administration are waging against Fox News, from a pretty unlikely source:  The Los Angeles Times:

Fox News relishes Obama administration scorn


'This is tremendous fodder for us,' the cable channel's Brit Hume says of the White House's salvos.


By Matea Gold

October 26, 2009

Reporting from New York


It's been a long time since Fox News, which avidly cultivates its outsider status, got to play the underdog. But after White House aides recently labeled the top-rated cable news channel "a wing of the Republican Party" and argued that it is not a news network, Fox News found itself back in a spot it relishes: firing back at a more powerful adversary.

The salvos by administration officials have rallied liberals who complain that the channel has a conservative agenda. The activist group MoveOn instantly jumped in the fray, urging Democrats to stay off Fox News programs.

But the White House's stance also gave extra lift to the network at a time when it is on track to record its best ratings year ever. This year, Fox News has averaged nearly 1.2 million viewers across all its programming, a 16% increase over the same period last year, according to Nielsen. In the two weeks since aides to President Obama took after the coverage, the audience has been 8% larger than the previous two weeks.

If anything, the Obama administration has succeeded in reinforcing Fox News' identity as a thorn in the side of the establishment -- a role the network loves to play.

"We may be No. 1, but there is sort of an insurgent quality to Fox News," said senior political analyst Brit Hume. "And that's kind of our attitude: 'Hoist a Jolly Roger, pull out our daggers and look for more throats to slit.' This is tremendous fodder for us. My lord, we've been living on it."

Glenn Beck, the network's newest star, gleefully unveiled a red telephone on his set, saying it was a special line for the White House to use to correct any mistakes he makes. Sean Hannity proudly labeled his program "Not White House approved." And Bill O'Reilly repeatedly hammered the White House in his nightly editorial.

"There is something very disturbing about the Obama administration fighting harder against Fox News than against the Taliban," he said last week.

Administration officials said they anticipated that Fox would try to capitalize on their remarks but felt they had to push back against the network's torrent of criticism.

"They were misrepresenting our programs and policies," said White House Communications Director Anita Dunn. "They were attacking members of the administration. And they were organizing political opposition on their shows. We wanted to set the record straight."

Fox News executives said the administration is failing to distinguish between their commentators and news programs.

"They talk about the opinion shows and they say, 'See, you're not doing journalism,' " said Michael Clemente, the channel's senior vice president of news, calling the contention that Fox News is not a news organization a "smear."

"I think it reinforces the fact that on the news side, we're the people that will ask the right questions, whatever those questions are," he added.

The back-and-forth is the latest chapter in a tortured relationship between Obama and Fox News. Early in the 2008 presidential campaign, he mostly steered clear of the channel amid pressure from liberal activists, forcing the cancellation of two Fox-hosted debates. But as the Democratic primary race moved to swing states such as Indiana, Obama stepped up his appearances on the network. He even granted O'Reilly a sit-down in September.

Tensions returned after Obama's victory. The network gave ample coverage to the "tea party" rallies protesting the administration's spending, with its hosts urging viewers to participate. Beck called Obama a racist and doggedly went after White House aides such as "green jobs" advisor Van Jones, slamming him for signing a petition questioning whether the U.S. had a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Jones ultimately resigned. The story was belatedly picked up by the rest of the media, prompting editors at the New York Times and other news organizations to say they needed to watch the network more closely.

The idea of Fox News setting the news agenda alarmed White House officials, who decided to vocalize their criticism of its coverage to try to dissuade other reporters from following the network's lead.

"I think the mainstream media has to ask themselves at a time when there are wars, when there is a bad economy, when there are huge challenges facing this country, whether they want to chase a narrow political agenda," Dunn said.

It's unclear whether the tactic will be effective. Bill Keller, executive editor of the New York Times, said that "if someone else breaks a good story, and if -- important if -- our own reporting backs it up, we'll run it. Even if it's Fox."

Los Angeles Times Editor Russ Stanton took a similar stance, saying, "We would follow any news story -- after confirming the facts and figuring out a way to advance it -- if we believed it was important to the readers of the Los Angeles Times, regardless of the organization or individual that broke it."

News executives at the other broadcast and cable television networks declined to comment on the dust-up. But there are signs that some in their ranks are uncomfortable with the White House's tack. Last week, ABC senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper quizzed Press Secretary Robert Gibbs about the appropriateness of the White House determining what constituted a news organization.

On Thursday, the Washington bureau chiefs of the networks balked when the Treasury Department sought to exclude Fox from a series of interviews with executive pay czar Kenneth Feinberg that was being filmed with a pool camera. The bureau chiefs insisted that Fox be included because it was part of the five-network pool, said CBS bureau chief Christopher Isham. "There was no debate," he said.

A senior administration official said the White House had not told Treasury to exclude Fox, and Gibbs told correspondent Major Garrett it had been a mistake.

On NBC last week, Obama tried to play down the dispute.

"What our advisors have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes," he said. "And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another thing. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Writer Matea Gold presents a candid, factual, evenhanded picture of how this has evolved.  Good for her, and good for the LA Times.  This is what journalism is supposed to be.

As far as Barack Obama not losing any sleep over it, we'll see how he feels after next week's gubernatorial elections in Virginia (where Republican Bob McDonnell appears poised to beat Democrat Creigh Deeds with room to spare) and New Jersey (where it will take every penny of Jon Corzine's "buy another election" money to squeak one out against Chris Christie - and he may not make it.  In fact the only reason Corzine has a realistic chance of winning is probably third-party candidate Chris Daggett, who is taking more votes from Christie than from him).

Of course Mr. Obama still might not lose any sleep, even if next week's results come out the way they're looking now:  hey, he's solid until 2012.  But I assure you that it will be a wake-up call for congressional Democrats running in next year's mid-term elections - one that they will sleep through at their own peril.

Zeke .... “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. .... We need to stand up and say we’re Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”.... .... .... .... – Hillary Rodham Clinton April 28, 2003 (10/26/09)


Ken Berwitz

This point has been raised by the staff at www.newsbusters. org: 

President Obama's late-night declaration of a nationwide public health emergency last night shouldn't be allowed to obscure the most important lesson of the developing swine flu crisis - The same government that only weeks ago promised abundant supplies of swine flu vaccine by mid-October will be running your health care system under Obamacare.

As you might expect, given that I've made the same point over and over again during the past several months, I consider this very well worth pondering.

Don't you?

Zeke .... Ken ..... Recalls the SNL skit during Gulf War I:.... Scene - Military Press Conference ...... Briefing Officer asks for questions from the Press ..... Reporter: "What are the greatest weaknesses of the US and its Coalition forces.... and how can Saddam's forces best exploit those weaknesses" (10/26/09)

Ken Berwitz There certainly is no such thing as incompetence in the Obama White House, that's for sure. But media's blind eye may be starting to open - albeit far too little and far too late. Illustratively, read the New York Times editorial today in which - while making the requisite attacks on Bush - it goes after Obama for "covering up" information regarding the war on terrorism. (The Times, in its seemingly infinite obtuseness, appears to believe that everything should be out there to see - even for our enemies who are sworn to destroy western civilization through jihad. Maybe it is this level of chronic myopia that is causing the Times to continue losing both money and circulation.) (10/26/09)

steve schneider what irritates me was that when there was a shortage of flu shots last year due to contamination bush was blamed. this was compared to katrina etc. and the issue was competence. but, theres no such thing as incompetence when a dem. is in the white house. steve (10/26/09)


Ken Berwitz

How much longer will they wait?  How many more rationalizations will they come up with?  When will the geniuses at NBC programming figure out that, as talented as Jay Leno may be and as desirable a late night personality as he was, his show is a bust in prime time?

From today's New York Post:

A Leno Letdown

Poor newscast ratings stir unease at NBC stations

Last Updated: 9:37 AM, October 26, 2009

Posted: 1:01 AM, October 26, 2009


Six weeks after Jay Leno moved to primetime, NBC's wait-and-see approach to his sinking ratings is testing the patience of affiliate stations across the country.

The Peacock network maintains that putting Leno on five nights a week will pay off when fresh episodes of his show go up against reruns on other networks, but so far Leno has been a disappointing lead-in for the late newscasts that follow him.

After a strong start, his program at 10 p.m. is down sharply from its premiere week and is drawing one-quarter fewer viewers than its scripted predecessors a year ago. This is having a ripple effect on the local newscast and late night.

Ratings for late newscasts at NBC affiliates in 44 of the top 56 metered markets are down this year, falling an average of 13 percent in the first four weeks of the season compared with a year ago. In 10 of the top 25 major markets, the numbers are worse, with New York down 22 percent, Philadelphia off 37 percent and Miami down 30 percent.

NBC argues there could more factors at work than Leno and points out that some stations, such as Detroit, are up this season. Still, ratings for NBC affiliates are down more than those of its competitors. ABC affiliates' newscasts are down 10 percent, while CBS' are up 8 percent.

"We believe in the combination of a bankable star like Jay Leno hosting an exciting, topical show five nights a week and are committed to continuing to engage with our affiliates in ways to make that relationship work," an NBC spokesman said.

NBC says Leno is a long-term strategy that will play out over 52 weeks, and that most affiliates appear to be on board.

"Some of the significant dramas right now are going to run out of steam by December and be out until February," said DJ Wilson, general manager at KGW in Portland, Ore. "There is a real opportunity for Leno to pop. We really agree that this is a marathon, not a sprint."

However, there are signs of growing discontent, with some station managers becoming more vocal about their dissatisfaction. One manager said the clock is ticking and he gives Leno until next year to show improvement.

"I give them through February," said the manager, who asked to remain unnamed for fear of reprisal. "I don't think anybody is anxious to pull any triggers. Plan B is to give the 10 p.m. hour back to the affiliates."

The Peacock has been languishing in fourth place for a while, and it's been years since it had a strong scripted lead-in at 10 p.m. In that time, affiliates have grown accustomed to doing the heavy lifting.

With Leno, NBC is easing the pain of lower ratings by giving affiliates additional commercial time to sell.

"The network reformed the programs so we get an extra bit of commercial inventory," said Steve Baboulis, general manager of WNYT-TV in Albany. "The reality is our revenue in the 10 o'clock time period is up year-to-year. The difference is better inventory."

NBC has made the same mistake that CBS made with Katie Carwreck.  You don't take someone out of his/her element and expect the same results.

Some folks never learn....

Zeke .... "NBC has made the same mistake [with Jay Leno's programming change] that CBS made with Katie Carwreck" .... Really ? ..... You don't think that Jay Leno is PERKY, either ? (10/26/09)


Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!