I am sure this will be followed with more claims of Foxes bias, but this is classic.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News was interviewing the editor of US weekly, and she owned him.  Pure and simple.

The story revolves around the US weekly cover of Sarah Palin, below:

As you can see, the picture has a pretty clear message.

The problems came when people compared it to the cover below from June:

The contrast is obvious.  The Obama’s get a fluff piece on how wonderful they are, whereas Sarah is portrayed alone, and her article is a rundown of any juicy rumor then can find.  Perhaps the fact that US Weekly is owned by the people who own Rolling Stone, who love Obama almost to the point of deification had some impact:

What a noble halo you have, Mr Obama.  Can there be any doubt these two magazines are in the tank for Obama?

Well, Megyn called the editor on it.  After you enjoy this clip, see below for the magazine cover US weekly should have run…

Here is the story they had 10+ months to run, but they chose not to…

Trackposted to Michelle Malkin, Dirty Harry, http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/02/pds-alert-us-magazines-partisan-hit-job/, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Hi Readers.  I write to you from my death bed (cough cough)…(sniff hack)…(snort)

OK, not so bad as all that.  A pesky cold and some back problems has really kept me low, but I am back to work tomorrow and back to writing tonight.

So while I was resting this weekend, the world, despite my polite request, kept turning, the news kept churning and the fires kept burning.

The big local story was Boeing losing another airplane bid to main rival Airbus.  The shock however was that the customer is The US Air Force for its next generation tanker fleet.  Now Boeing got severely slapped previously in a bod on the tanker, so this is insult to injury.

The thing is, if Boeing cannot make a competitive product, guess what?  They lose sales, and Airbus has proven itself a serious rival for years.

Now, Ken Schram blames Boeing for all its outsourcing.  I disagree with him because I think the problem is not in that small facet, but in the larger way that Boeing does business.  I worked there for three years and I say, in my opinion, the problems at Boeing are deeply rooted in its arrogance, its top heavy management, its catering to unions and its wasteful business practices.

For instance, requiring new applicants to pass an completely ridiculous diversity screening test is absurd.  The test is geared to make you answer that you love working with people of other cultures, and that you wouldn’t dream of not working without them.  If however, you answer that you really don’t care, that you work well with anyone, well, you are unsuitable.

While some areas are sleek and modern, others are antiquated, sluggish and inefficient. 

Bet you didn’t hear about this on the news did you?

Municipalities can’t ban people from owning handguns, court rules

San Francisco’s ban on handguns, blocked by a legal challenge since voters approved it in November 2005, suffered a possibly fatal blow Wednesday when a state appeals court ruled that local governments have no authority under California Law to prevent people from owning pistols.

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with a June 2006 ruling by Superior Court Judge James Warren, who said state laws regulating gun sales, permits and safety leave no room for a city or county to forbid handgun possession.

State courts have upheld some local restrictions, including prohibitions on the sale or possession of guns on public fairgrounds, Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo noted in the 3-0 ruling. But in general, “when it comes to regulating firearms, local governments are well advised to tread lightly,” he wrote.

San Francisco’s ban was challenged by the National Rifle Association, whose lobbyist Chris Cox called Wednesday’s ruling “a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA members of San Francisco.”

Alexis Thompson, spokeswoman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said the ruling  was disappointing, “particularly in light of the continuing plague of handgun violence here in San Francisco.”

About that…so tell me, would the hand gun ban stop the violence?  No.  The fact is that using a handgun for violence is already a crime, so outlawing peaceful ownership is absolutely pointless.  Banning their guns from people who already are using them criminally is unlikely to have a measurable impact.

The city could ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. History would not be on the city’s side, however, as the state’s high court refused to review a 1982 ruling by the same appeals court striking down an earlier San Francisco ordinance that prohibited handgun possession in the city limits.

We shall see.  Newsbusters says:

Note:  THE CLIP BELOW IS PARODY, IT IS NOT REAL.

I find the Onion equally funny and distasteful, depending on the subject, which makes them effective neutral in my opinion.

Satire, by definition, should sting.  Wiki says “In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with an intent to bring about improvement.  Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humour in itself so much as an often quite angry attack on something the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.”

I am of mixed feelings with this, so I cannot say if they lived up to this definition or not, but I can see that it was the intent.

The victims of satire here are both TSA Screeners, who have been criticized for being lax in their duties, and the Main Stream Media, whose quest for sensationalism has sometimes led them to dangerous waters, such as releasing classified information that damages national security, just to get the scoop.

The message is clear:  Screeners are inept.  Their security measures are ineffective.  Reporters are essentially information whores who would exploit even the most awful circumstances just to prove a point.  And the newscaster takes a few hits, as the Anchor reading the story of the events in the parody was full of victorious gloating, callous blame shifting and needless finger pointing with no regard for the actual cost of catastrophe.

The danger here is that all of the insinuations are ever so slightly on target.  Newscasters dto pontificate soberly, devoid of all emotion, over stories that are gross and horrible, reporters do seek stories with an overzealousness that is almost criminal, and the TSA has earned some serious criticism due to mistakes and nonsensical restrictions. 

Hot Air notes:

A trenchant satire on the media’s loyalty in the age of terror? Not from a lefty outfit like the Onion. Call this a commentary on sensationalist stunt journalism — sort of like “To Catch a Predator” but in the national security context.

UPDATE:  See the video below.  In it Michelle notes one interesting fact previously unknown:  CNN disclosed the political affiliation of one of the questioners who had a republican agenda.

Good for the goose, but not for the gander, apparently….

Debacle is the best word I can come up with, as farce is overused.

But before I detail that dreadful event, I have some thoughts.

As my title suggest, politics is war.  As in a conventional war, there are opposing forces that wield force to secure advantages in territory, power and control.

There are armies, generals, tactics and battles which range from near meaningless skirmishes to full blown earth shattering engagements.

There are weapons.  Not the traditional slings and arrows, or guns and bullets, the weapons of the political war are ideas and promises.  Truth and disclosure.  Lies and innuendo.  Deception and misdirection.

And most important:  Money.

And there are spies, the operatives who seek the information to destroy the enemy.  There is secrecy and security to keep information secure.  There is deceptions and misdirection and even betrayal.

All of this exists because the modern politician operates from a position of moral authority that justifies any means necessary to win, because his or her ideals and ideologies are the best for the nation.  So what might be dismissed as dishonest or dishonorable is rationalized as necessary and crucial.

Because winning is everything.

I first became politically aware in the 70s, around the end of the Nixon years.  Through Ford, Carter and part of Reagan I had little interest and understanding of politics, and frankly the world was not as transparent then as now.

But now, since the Clinton years, I have watched and paid attention, and very little surprises me about the playbooks of dirty tricks.

So when i read about the Republican CNN You Tube debate, I should have not been horribly surprised, what with Hillary having already been shown to be guilty of planting questions in her own campaign.

The headlines read that the wolf had become a lamb, referring to Wolf Blitzer, who softballed the debate.

After Hillary’s flopping over illegal immigrants and drivers licenses, how could he not make that an issue?

But he didn’t.  And Edwards and Obama laid down for her and let her steam roll.  I don’t get it.  She is on the ropes, and in politics, you dont back off and wait for the other person to catch their breath, you finish it…if you want to win.

Well now, beyond all that, the accusation comes that the final question CNN picked from the audience for Hillary was softballed as well:

“Diamonds v. Pearls” Student Blasts CNN

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred “diamonds or pearls” at last night’s debate wrote on her MySpace page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

“Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN,” Luisa writes. “I was asked to submit questions including “lighthearted/fun” questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance.”

Now, Luisa is getting “swamped” with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:

“CNN ran out of time and used me to “close” the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, “you gave our school a bad reputation.’ Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That’s what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That’s politics; that’s reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America–and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question.”

First up is NBC’s green campaign that sent Matt to the snow, Al Roker to the Equator and turned off all the studio lights during the news.

NBC Goes to ‘Ends of the Earth’ to Explore Climate Change

In what the Today show billed as a “first,” anchor Matt Lauer — shivering in the bitter cold — reported live from the Arctic Circle, correspondent Ann Curry reported live from Antarctica and weatherman Al Roker was live at the equator.

“An incredible broadcast from three extreme locations,” Matt Lauer said at the top of the show. He also admitted he was “freezing my you-know-what off,” as he reported live from a boat off Greenland.

Lauer said the Today show would bring viewers “stunning images” as well as information “that’s going to make you stop and think about the state of our planet — how we’re treating it and how it’s going to treat us.”

Hot Air posted some video and a couple of intriguing observations:

At halftime, Bob Costas tossed to Matt Lauer, who was standing in a bleak vista in front of what appeared to be a pack of sled dogs somewhere in the Arctic Circle. The crew bathed Lauer’s set with what looks like several hundred square yards of dazzling light. Judging by the scale of the Huskies compared to Lauer, the light zone must go 50 or 60 yards straight back and probably at least a similar distance across. So that lit space alone probably offset the studio lights that some pinhead decided to turn off in the studio as a show of green power, dude. Then there were the heaters to warm up the on-camera divas, the power to run the cameras and comm gear, and floating soot in the air by burning the candles.

Then there’s all the jet fuel that got burned up flying NBC’s vapid anchors, Lauer, Al Roker and Ann Curry plus crews and gear to remote locations. Yeah, turning those studio lights off really saved one heck of a lot of energy, NBC.

What is it with Chris Matthews, and why do they keep letting him moderate?  Ever debate for the right wingers he hosts he has to waste our time taking shots at the candidates and trying to attack their answers instead of just letting them live or die on the weight of their own words.

Moderators should steer the questions, but they are supposed to be theoretically neutral.

As for Fred!, I was not disappointed really.  He made some solid sensible answers and handled the surprises very well.

He was not flashy, he was solid, which I think will win out in the long run.  Captain Ed has more analysis:

Fred Wins, Chris Loses (Update: My Prediction Comes True)

The first debate with Fred Thompson was expected to reveal whether the lanky actor had what it takes to make a national run for the office. Instead, it revealed Chris Matthews as a hack of the first order, one who tried his best to torpedo Thompson — and failed utterly. He got so desperate that he demanded to know whether Thompson knew who the Canadian Prime Minister was — and he did. Matthews grew so frustrated that he openly critiqued one of Thompson’s answer for being too detailed, which prompted a scolding from Thompson.

That was the game behind the debate, and Thompson stomped Matthews into a laughingstock. In the rest of the debate, Thompson showed that he was comfortable and prepared, even for the silly attacks from other candidates. Mitt Romney went into a long, telegraphed, and obviously gag-written punch about how the debates resemble “Law and Order” and how Fred shows up last, which Fred neatly returned by feigning surprise that he wasn’t the best actor on the stage — jabbing at Romney’s perceived plasticness.

Fred’s in now, and he will find new momentum after this performance. Matthews will become more of a joke, if such a thing is possible at a network that employs Keith Olbermann.

I saw this on several blogs today and at first I was of the same mind as the others, but as the day has gone on, I think there is an unanswered question.

The situation is that David Shuster was interviewing Rep Marsha Blackburn, and he decided to sandbag her on the air by demanding if she knew the name of the last GI killed from her distract. 

She didn’t, and gleefully, he trotted out the name to shame her:

SHUSTER: Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent of course a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last soldier from your district who was killed in Iraq?

MARSHA BLACKBURN: The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq from my district? I do not know.

SHUSTER: OK, his name was Jeremy Bohannon. He was killed August the ninth, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?

Now obviously the only reason HE knew was because he was setting up operation duck shoot on his show and he needed ammo, but there was still a little problem:

Jeremy Bohannon was NOT from her district.

Oops.  He issued an apology later for screwing up the name.  But despite that, and aside from the fact that he would not apologize for playing duck hunt with a guest, I have a few problems with this.

Now, most bloggers are chortling at him falling in his own pit, and indeed he scored a minor own goal.  I see it as minor only because she still didn’t know, so his point was made, unless there has not been any killed in her district.

But I would also argue that most Representatives and Senators do not carry a list of the war dead with them.  Maybe they should, but they don’t.  I would bet happily most in Washington would reach for a staff member to find out if asked.

And, I would bet that Shuster does not know the latest dead soldier from his own home town.

I am sure most liberals would continue to say no.  But the fact is you can blithely dismiss this.  This is an industry that is profit driven, so the decision to give MoveOn.Org a sweetheart rate for the Petraeus Betray Us ad at the cost of $100 grand plus in lost revenue is significant.  Via Hot Air:

TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR ‘BETRAY US’ AD

The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org’s ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined “Cooking the Books for the White House,” the ad which ran in Monday’s Times says Petraeus is “a military man constantly at war with the facts” and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that “General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.”

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.”

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

I can’t pretend to act surprised.  And the bias is clear when you find out the pro war media watch was charged much more for their recent full page ad.

The defenders can claim that this is not unlawful, and they are right (as far as I know).

But the Newspaper is suppose to report the news, and outside its editorial pages it is supposed to do so impartially. So when you offer favored rates to one political cause, there is no way you can claim that is there?

So as I said, this just exposes and confirms what most of us knew already.  The NY Times has a liberal bias.

By the way, my Blog’s ad space has a single rate structure, no matter the political leanings of the advertiser.