First, David Zurawick in the Baltimore Sun:

ON MSNBC, the ratio of negative to positive stories on GOP candidate Mitt Romney was 71 to 3.

That's not a news channel. That's a propaganda machine, and owner Comcast should probably change Phil Griffin's title from president to high minister of information, or something equally befitting the work of a party propaganist hack in a totalitarian regime. You wonder how mainstream news organizations allow their reporters and correspondents to appear in such a cauldron of bias.

I thought show host Sean Hannity of Fox News defined party propagandist. But while his channel was bad, it wasn't as bad-boy biased as MSNBC.

The ratio of negative to positive stories in Fox's coverage of President Obama was 46 to 6.

Next the Pew Research Center release:

From the conventions until the first debate, a period of improving polls for Obama, Romney suffered his period of the most negative coverage; just 4% of stories about him were positive while 52% were negative. Coverage of Obama during this period was fairly evenly split (20% positive vs. 24% negative). That narrative reversed sharply with the first debate. For the next two weeks, Romney saw the mixed treatment (23% positive vs. 23% negative) while Obama was caught in the critical loop, with 12% positive and 37% negative. After the second debate, coverage returned to its more general pattern, with an edge for Obama.

In other words, the media attempted to cover itself from the charge of bias after the first debate which showed Obama to be completely unfit for the office, but returned to cheerleading for him after he performed adequately after the second debate--admitted to by Pew by the phrase "coverage returned to its more general lpattern, with an edge for Obama."

Now, I heartily dislike Hannity's program on Fox News, as being a bad combination of talking-points recitation and shouting matches. But MSNBC at almost any time of day or night is utterly unwatchable by anyone who actually seeks to fairly hear both sides of pretty much any issue. As Zurawick notes, MSNBC is not a news channel, it is a propaganda channel promoting the Democratic Party and socialist "progressive" causes.

And almost all professional journalists share that "progressive" worldview with the MSNBC Ministry of Misinformation, making it almost impossible to actually have a real and honest discussion of any issue of public interest. The professional media is all too often focused on belittling and shouting down any non-socialist, non-Keynesian viewpoint. That's not journalism. That's an ongoing, relentless apologia for the Left.

We'll start on a light note. It'll go downhill fast from there.

Six game road trip starts at Montana -- Go Rabbits!

Site News: I'm contemplating a migration from the current platform (Geeklog) to Wordpress. Might start taking that on after the new year. Also, there's some travel journals that need posting--these should be forthcoming "real soon now."

Now, on with the whip:

Honest -- A web comic. Truth.

I couldn't care less what the 2012 election says about the future of the Republican Party.

I do care somewhat however about what the 2012 election says about the future of the United States, and of the world. And in my humble opinion, what is says is nothing good for either my country or the world.

Same as it ever was.



To my dear, beloved Democrat-voting fellow citizens:

You broke it. You fix it. Everything that's wrong with this country is either your fault, or you've made it worse because of your well-intentioned but naive policies (and I'm offering you the most charitable interpretation possible here). Good luck in the next four years, because you're gonna need it.

You can't blame Bush any more. This mess belongs 100% to Obama now--and to the Democratic Party. And since none of you high-minded Democrats know why it's going wrong in the first place, you won't be able to fix it. And since your idea of constructive engagement with Republicans and free-enterprisers is to loudly shout "SHUT UP!!!" whenever we have the temerity to say "uh, excuse me, have you really thought through what you're gonna do?" you have made yourself totally immune to anything but your comfortable, disastrous groupthink.

My prediction for the next four years: It ain't gonna get a lot better.

It is a comfort to me that I am not always right. Perhaps you know-it-all Democrats could try some humility some time. But I fear that humility is an emotion you have no further use for, in your march to the grand collective "progressive" future.

Done with politics. For a while anyway. It's all on you now, Democrats. For the love of Gaia, don't screw up too badly.

Obama: "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."

The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

And this guy is supposed to be a "Constitutional scholar?"

The United States, as a nation, respects no faith whatsoever. That is what "religious tolerance" means: you tolerate religions other than your own. You don't have to "respect" them.

2001: Islamist extremists slaughter nearly 3,000 Americans.

2012: Islamist extremists attack the American embassy in Egypt and the American consulate in Libya.

Ah, the "Arab Spring." It's a good thing--right?

. . . and so, have no right to an opinion on the matter (right, Democrats?) but it seems to me that this ad here is absolutely devestating to the "war-on-women" "narrative" being pushed by . . . well . . . you know.

This is why the Democratic Party of the United States needs to be destroyed, and the ground it stands on sown with salt.

The only person I can be said to belong to is my wife.

The government belongs to me--and to all of us. This is very, very different from saying that we "belong" to the government.

The concept that the government was subordinate to the people was a revolutionary concept--in fact, back in the day, they called the intellectual revolution surrounding that thought "The Enlightenment." This was in opposition to the older view, the view reflected in the concept of the "divine right of kings" and the like.

That older, less Enlightened age is the one that the Democratic Party of the United States wants to take us back to. For our own good, of course.

UPDATE: Just like "you didn't build that" and "what Republicans are saying is harmful to Israel" this has now become yet another of those (many) things that the Democrats never said, despite what your lying ears may tell you by actually listening to their plain words.

In this context, the difficulty the Democrats have in reading the Constitution becomes more understandable.