Posts Tagged ‘bias’

So who won the battle in the most anticipated, scrutinized, studied, criticized and speculated upon Super Bowl in the history of this televised event?  No, I don’t mean the football game, I mean the Focus on the Family ad featuring the mother of Tim Tebow.   (oh, for the record, the Saints beat the Colts, 31-17).

Well, it’s only my opinion but the win clearly belongs to Focus on the Family and the Tebow family, and even more importantly the win also goes to the wider conservative, pro-life movement.  Even more clearly than who the winners are, is that the losers are hands down, unquestionably liberal pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood, NOW and Gloria Allred.  Yeah, cause they lost it.  Literally.  Remember all the articles expressing the Left’s outrage over this commercial that was going to “blur the lines of sports and politics”?   We all remember that.  Then the Super Bowl came and the ad (actually two ads) were run.

Nothing.  Nothing outrageous, nothing controversial, nothing offensive.

After seeing the actual commercial, most of us responded with a quizzical look and perhaps a “is that it?” question.  I myself thought I must have missed the real commercial, as the one I saw was so–uncontroversial.  Anyone not already on a side in this debate was left to wonder how come the liberals were trying so hard to shutdown that commercial.  The people in the room I was in, filled with twenty-something year olds of seemingly all political stripes responded with “is that it?” confusion and comments. A big debate about what the big deal was ensued.   And the liberals looked exactly like what they are:  controlling, irrational, anti-Christian and pro-abortion, and certainly not ‘pro-choice,’  if that choice means choosing Life.  The ungluing of the Liberal Left leading up to the Super Bowl wasn’t a pretty sight to see, unless you are on the pro-life side like I am, in which case, watching the left unravel in the weeks before the Super Bowl culminating in the final ‘sssssss’ as the air went out of their bloated windbags upon seeing the actual commercial was priceless. 

I want to say that the pro-abortion side handed the Tebow side the victory, because they clearly overreacted and overreached.  But you know what?  No, I don’t think that is quite right.  The Left lost it, sure and they certainly did  not seem to be in the same ballgame as the Tebow family.  But they didn’t lose the contest for America’s sympathy.  FotF and the Tebows won itby accurately predicting a meltdown on the left.  Looking back on it now, I can see that the win didn’t happen on Sunday, February 7th.  The win occurred in the strategy meetings at FotF.  Yep, altogether a brilliant plan.  Just let it be leaked that Focus on the Family was buying ad time during the Super Bowl, and that the ad in question might feature Tim Tebow.  Then get that corrected to say it’s really going to be about his mom.  Google searches ensue.  Blogs are written that suggest that Pam Tebow will be talking about her difficult choice to bring her pregnancy with Tim to term when doctors recommended she abort him.  Speculation grows like wildfire until it is a near certainty that Pam Tebow will be talking about her difficult choice to bring her pregnancy with Tim to term when doctors recommended she abort him.   Radical liberals and abortion providers go into meltdown, threatening CBS, the NFL and everyone else they can think of.  America takes note warily.  Why are all these people so up in arms?  If they are “pro-choice,” why can’t Mrs. Tebow talk about her choice?  Isn’t choosing Life an equally valid (at the least!) choice?  No, America learns during Super Bowl XLIV:  it’s not.  Choosing Life is not an option for radical pro-choice groups.

Personally, I want to thank Focus on the Family, Pam Tebow, Tim Tebow and all those bloggers out there who let it ‘slip’ that Pam Tebow might talk about abortion during an ad to be run during the Super Bowl.


(I am not the only one who thinks this)

(to see the full Tebow story, go here to Focus on the Family.  Click to view the ad.)


Read Full Post »

I know this is off-topic for me, but I’m posting it anyway.  This is a post about the press.  The bias of the press.  The liberal bias of the press.

First, here is the news article from the Associated Press:

GOP senator: Democratic health care deals ‘sleazy’

Dec 22, 7:38 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (AP) – A Republican senator who has opposed President Barack Obama’s health overhaul effort said Tuesday that the deals Democratic leaders have cut to round up the votes they need to push the measure through the Senate have been “sleazy.”

Speaking Tuesday on NBC’s “Today” show, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina cited concessions won by Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, whose support gave Democrats the 60th and final vote they need. Among other things, Nelson won an agreement that the federal government will pay to expand Medicaid services in Nebraska.

Said Graham: “That’s not change you can believe in. That’s sleazy.”

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa defended the concessions, saying: “The one that’s being talked about for Nebraska, it also benefits other states. It’s not just Nebraska.”

He also said he would vote for the package even if it didn’t contain concessions for Iowa. “The principle of this bill overrides everything,” Harkin told CBS'”Early Show.”

Graham rejected criticism leveled by some Democrats that GOP opposition to Obama’s health care effort is being driven by extremists.

“I’m not a member of a militia, I’m not a birther,” he said, referring to those who have questioned, inaccurately, whether Obama is an American citizen. “I’m a senator who wants to reform health care, but I’m not going to allow my country to become a socialized nation when it comes to health care.”

Harkin described the debate as “a demarcation line.”

He explained: “On one side is health care as a privilege. On the other side is health care as a right. With these votes, with the vote that we’ll take before Christmas, we will cross that line finally and say that health care is a right of all Americans.”

The Senate had procedural votes Tuesday morning on the overhaul bill and Democrats are pushing for final passage before Christmas.


Did you observe what I did in this article?  In discussing Sen. Graham’s denial that he is an extremist, he mentions the term “birthers” which the AP stringer then defines for readers.  But did you catch it?   The AP editorial insertion?

“I’m not a member of a militia, I’m not a birther,” he said, referring to those who have questioned, inaccurately, whether Obama is an American citizen.

How exactly do we know it is inaccurate?  Do you recall reading this sentence in any newspaper of oh, say 4 years ago:

“I’m  not a member of conspiracy groups who say that George W. Bush pulled strings to get out of going with the Air National Guard to Vietnam,” referring to those who claimed, inaccurately, that Bush used connections to get out of any Vietnam service.

No?  don’t remember that?   ‘Cause it was never written and never will be.  News articles will continue to be written that pass on speculation, gossip, lies and deceits — if the target is on the Liberals’ hit list –without any sort of helpful editorial comments willy nilly inserted into a fact piece.

Nice going, AP.

Read Full Post »

Another update on the crucifix drawing / student suspension story.  This one is from Fox News.

No one disputes that the boy drew this, but the school district denies that this was the "disturbing" drawing that caused the teacher to have him suspended. Oh, and the school district denies that they had him suspended. Father stands by what was reported. Stay tuned.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009  FC1

A Massachusetts father is standing by claims that his 8-year-old son was sent home from school after the boy drew a stick figure of Jesus on a crucifix.

Chester Johnson, 40, said his son did indeed draw the picture circulated to reporters and that Taunton School District officials later said was not the same drawing discovered by the second-grade student’s teacher earlier this month.

“I swear to God, on my grave, you could kill me if I’m lying,” Johnson, 40, told FoxNews.com. “I wouldn’t make nothing up. This is the holiday season — I don’t have time for that.”

Johnson, who said he works for the Taunton School District as a part-time custodian, told FoxNews.com that his hours have been cut since the controversy made headlines locally and nationally.

“It’s put a toll on me,” Johnson said. “Now I’m trying to get a transfer.”

Late Wednesday, The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Virginia, issued a statement on behalf of Johnson citing the “psychological damage” to the boy’s family.

“This is a case of overreaction by school officials,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “[The boy’s] drawing was simply a reflection of something he saw at a Christmas light show. The psychological damage to this family is appalling, and it is a clear-cut violation of their constitutional rights.”

Whitehead called on school officials to arrange for the boy to be transferred to an out-of-district school and for his parents to be compensated with associated transportation costs.

Taunton School District officials did not immediately respond on Wednesday to Johnson’s claims, including whether he was employed by the district.

In a statement to Fox News on Wednesday afternoon, Taunton School District Superintendent Julie Hackett said that Johnson and his wife were scheduled to meet with school officials at 9 a.m., but the couple did not show.

School officials said Tuesday that the boy was not suspended due to the sketch.

“This report is totally inaccurate, and the student was never suspended,” a statement read.

The school claims the incident took place nearly two weeks ago and says the incident was handled “appropriately.”

School officials also denied Johnson’s claim that students were asked to draw something that reminded them of Christmas or another holiday.

“Contrary to what has been reported, there was no request or assignment by the teacher for students to sketch something that reminded them of Christmas or any religious holiday,” the statement continued.

Johnson said his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday season.

Johnson, who is African-American, told WBZ-TV that he suspected racism was involved, but revised that assessment when asked by FoxNews.com.

“No, I want to take that out,” Johnson said. “I don’t want to use the race card. This is God we’re talking about, we’re past that.”

Mass. Father Defends Claim That Boy, 8, Was Sent Home From School for Jesus Drawing – Local News | News Articles | National News | US News – FOXNews.com

Posted using ShareThis

Read Full Post »

UPDATE:  The AP reports this evening that the school district in Taunton is denying salient parts of this story, including the reported suspension, whether the drawing in question is the same one from the class that concerned the teacher and even that a Christmas-related drawing was done in school.  In other words, this is a big mess.   Stay tuned.

This is an appalling story.  These teachers and administrators canNOT be this dumb, can they?  It has to be some form of prejudice.  Sounds like Christian prejudice to me, although the article suggests that race may be involved.  This poor kid.   His dad is right: what the kid saw at the Shrine was a GOOD thing, not bad. 

And is the AP equating a stick figure drawing of a school shooting with a stick figure drawing of our Lord crucified?  Duh.  It’s the Associated Press;  of course they are.

Dec 15 02:50 PM US/Eastern
TAUNTON, Mass. (AP) – An 8-year-old boy was sent home from school and ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation after he was asked to make a Christmas drawing and came up with what appeared to be a stick figure of Jesus on a cross, the child’s father said Tuesday.Chester Johnson told WBZ-TV that his son made the drawing on Dec. 2 after his second-grade teacher asked children to sketch something that reminded them of the holiday.

Johnson said the teacher became upset when his son said he drew himself on the cross. Johnson, who is black, told WBZ he suspects racism is involved. He said he thinks the school overreacted and wants an apology.

Johnson told the Taunton Daily Gazette, which first reported the story on Tuesday, that his son gets specialized reading and speech instruction and has never been violent in school.

An educational consultant working with the Johnson family said the teacher was also alarmed when the boy drew Xs for Jesus’ eyes.

A call to Johnson was not immediately returned.

The boy was cleared to return to school on Dec. 7 after the evaluation found nothing to indicate that he posed a threat to himself or others. But his father said the boy was traumatized by the incident and the school district has approved the family’s request to have the child transferred to another school.

“They owe my family an apology and the kid an apology and they need to work with my son (to) the best of their ability to get him back to where he was before all this happened,” Johnson told New England Cable News.

The father said in the days before the incident the family had gone to the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette in Attleboro, where there are crucifixion statues.

“That was fresh on his mind,” he told NECN. “And that was a good thing that he saw.”

Superintendent Julie Hackett said she could not discuss an individual student and did not address the drawing specifically or the teacher’s reaction to it, but did say the school has safety protocols in place that were followed.

Hackett did not return multiple calls from The Associated Press on Tuesday.

In June 2008, a Taunton fifth-grade student was suspended for a day for a stick figure drawing that appeared to depict him shooting his teacher and a classmate.

(emphasis mine)

See original story here:  Mass. 2nd-grader sent home for crucifix drawing.

Read Full Post »

Atheist Press? No, it stands for “Associated”….just like it’s written.

“You should always try to make friends, but there are certain things about religion that can’t be tolerated,” Gress said. “Basically, the intolerance of religion can’t be tolerated.”

This is the wonderful voice of “science and reason” as the Atheist Movement likes to phrase it.   Heh heh.  I doubt that kid knows he said something moronic.  Here are some other non-starters that I read in the AP story, Atheist student groups flower on college campuses.

In another sign of growing acceptance, at least three universities, including Harvard, now have humanist chaplains meeting the needs of the not-so-spiritual.

Huh?  I don’t suppose it is fair of me to assume that Harvard University knows that a “chaplain” is a religious clergyman who is attached to an institution, chapel or military branch.  How can a “chaplain” be non-religious?  Of course, we are modern here, let’s just hijack the definition of “chaplain” and it’s HARVARD, gosh darn it, and they can do whatever they please.

“The goal,” said Andrew Severin, a post-doctoral researcher in bioinformatics, “should be to obtain inner peace for yourself and do random acts of kindness for strangers.”

Severin calls himself a “spiritual atheist.” He doesn’t believe in God or the supernatural but thinks experiences like meditation or brushes with nature can produce biochemical reactions that feel spiritual.

Why would atheists be doing random acts of kindness for strangers?  what is a spiritual atheist?  Why doesn’t he call himself a “biochemical atheist”?  Does this post-doctorate know how …well…foolish he sounds?  is he post-logical, too?

You know, I think what bugs me most about this entire article / movement is its nonsensicality.  Is that a word?  Are Christians allowed to just make up words, too?  Well, I did and the word is nonsensicality and under its definition are the examples:  “spiritual atheist, “humanist chaplain” and “intolerance of intolerance”. 

With the growth has come soul-searching — or the atheist equivalent — about what secular campus groups should look like. It’s part of a broader self-examination in the atheist movement triggered by the rise of the so-called “new atheists,” best-selling authors who denigrate religion and blame it for the world’s ills.

Should student atheist groups go it alone or build bridges with Christian groups? Organize political protests or quiet discussion groups? Adopt the militant posture of the new atheists? Or wave and smile?

There are just all sorts of Wrong with this quote.  I’m going to stick with this:  I want to know what Christian groups are ‘building bridges’ with the Atheist student union.  No doubt, looking for that so-called common ground that Pres. Obama assured us we share.  Um, what common ground do Christians have with Atheists?  Uh…um…uh…I dunno….gay rights?

The club worked with a Methodist church on a gay rights candlelight vigil, a gesture that would make some atheists cringe.

And some Christians, too.  Those that are ..um…Christian.  I am so happy to see our Methodist brethren building bridges with the Atheists on something that they both agree on.   (Is anyone else taking notes?)   Speaking of taking notes, here is another fun little observation:

Bodnar, an ex-Catholic married to a Buddhist, recommends the local Unitarian Universalist congregation, a haven for a grab bag of religious backgrounds and a few members of the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society.

Oh alright, I admit that I already knew about the problems with the Unitarian Universalists.  But its fun to note that it is a church that atheists feel perfectly comfortable recommending to other atheists.  Hint:  if your church is on the reco sheet for the Atheist and Agnostic Society, YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

Of course, that bastion of Catholic teaching [cough cough…sorry, got something caught in my throat] Notre Dame is in the article too, with helpful advice for ’emerging atheists’:

Christian Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame and a principal investigator on the youth and religion study, said campus atheist groups are better off without militancy. Young adults are taught their entire lives to be nonjudgmental, that different points of views are OK and that there is no one truth, he said.

“Emerging adults are just not into trying to make other people be or do something,” Smith said. “If I were advising atheists and humanists, I would say their long-term prospects are much better if they can successfully create this space where people view them as happy, OK, cooperative, nice people.”

 In other words, want to proselytize…er…attract more students to your atheist movement then stick with the reliable formula:  Act. Like. Christians.  I love it!  the entire point of Atheism is to deny all supernatural explanations, events and beliefs.  So what are the new Atheists doing?  Proselytizing, finding their “spiritual” atheism, being tended to by ‘chaplains’, building their communities, acting like Christians and er…soul-searching.  Did I sum that up correctly?

Oh, and in case you were mislead by the AP’s headline (which I am sure was not intentional) [cough cough..sorry], the writer throws this in at the bottom of the article:

On most college campuses, secular groups take shape when non-believing students arrive and find a couple-dozen Christian groups but no home for them. It isn’t that atheism is necessarily growing among students — surveys show no uptick in the number of atheist and agnostic young adults over the last 20 years.

 Associated Press, I want to thank you for yet another well-researched, timely and completely unbiased news article!

note:  all emphasis and coughing mine.  Sorry about the coughing, I seem to have my gullibility caught in my throat….

Read Full Post »

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The great and powerful Wizard has spoken!

From the AP via  Google:    

ATLANTA — The nation’s largest publisher of newspapers serving the gay and lesbian community has shut down.

Laura Douglas-Brown, editor of Southern Voice newspaper in Atlanta, said she arrived at work Monday to find the locks changed and a note saying parent company Window Media LLC had closed down.      

She said the company’s other publications — including the Washington Blade, Houston Voice and South Florida Blade — were also being closed.      

“From my understanding, there was just no more money to keep these companies running,” she said in a telephone interview as she sat with her former employees outside their locked Atlanta office. “We had all been told that the companies would be sold. The fact that we were shut down was a complete shock.” 

The reason why?  Well, you’ll be happy to know that the AP stringer reports the reason for the financial failure of this gay publishing conglomerate:  too many other mainstream sources for gay news.  Yep, you read that right.  Seems that the MSM is chockful of gay and lesbian news articles:    

The company’s financial trouble stemmed from a number of factors. Besides an industrywide drop in advertising revenue amid the economic meltdown, mainstream publications are writing more about gay and lesbian issues, reducing dependency on niche publications such as Window Media’s.  [emphasis mine]

[ahem]…Just where does the AP get that little bit of ‘insight’ into the financial meltdown?  As you might have noticed, there is no attribution, not even the generic and suspect tag “industry sources say” is attached.  It appears to me–and again, I’m just a citizen–but it appears to this citizen that the AP reporter is just editorializing.  The listed causes for the financial woes of this company are just an opinion, but this opinion gets written up as factual reporting and sent out across the wire and republished.  So in other words, the opinion of Dorie Turner is that these woes are not reflective of a COMPLETE LACK ON INTEREST IN THE GAY ‘VOICE’.  Nope.  It’s not.  And don’t pay any attention to that man behind the curtain, either.

You know, I don’t really care about this gay and lesbian media company:  it makes no difference to me one way or another whether 3 or 4 or 5 gay newspapers go belly up.  I don’t read them anyway.   But I DO care that the Associated Press is once again, passing on opinion–liberal left-wing opinion–as fact, in an attempt to mold, shape, mislead or fool the public.  And I’m only posting this because should Dorie Turner or any of the other MSM string-pullers ever stumble across my weblog, I want them to know….I’M ON TO YOU!

Read Full Post »

ABC News actually entitled this article Newborns Cry With An Accent, Study Finds but I retitled it to emphasize what the pro-aborts don’t want you to know. 

[A]ccording to a new study …babies cry with an accent within the first week of life.

By recording cries of 60 babies born to French or German parents, researchers discovered that babies cry with the same “prosody” or melody used in their native language by the second day of life.

French newborns in the study ended their cries with a lilt at the end typically heard in French. German babies, however, started their cries intensely and dropped off at the end — much like the emphasis their German parents put in a sentence, according to a study published Thursday in Current Biology.

Experts in child development say the most exciting part of this discovery is not that infants recognize the melody of their language, but that the newborns may have the ability to use what they heard in the womb to then control their cries.

 That’s right–babies learn in the womb

Were You Learning in the Womb?

“I think we’ve always known that fetuses hear what’s in the room,” said Dr. Ari Brown, author of Baby 411, and a practicing pediatrician in Austin, Texas. “As newborns they do recognize their mother’s voices, and they ignore the dog barking because they’ve been hearing the dog barking three months before they were born.”

Exactly what fetuses were learning from these noises is still mostly a mystery to doctors. A small study this spring showed evidence that by the 30th week of pregnancy fetuses had “short-term memory” of loud sounds — if they recognized a sound was made before, the fetuses would not react to it.  [emphasis mine]

A study showing that babies learn in the womb, that’s pretty fantastic news, isn’t it?  Why wouldn’t ABC News–or any organization for that matter–include that as its headline?  After all, not many people are going to click on a link to an article about French accents.  Why not report the heart of the study, which is that it is quite clear that babies in the womb as young as 6 mos along are capable of learning? Could it be that telling the world that “fetuses are learning, are thinking” is something they don’t want US to think about?  How the heck can “fetal matter” learn anything?  Unless…it’s not “fetal matter.”  Unless it’s a baby.  People Think.  Tissue does  not. 

So let me sum up the article that is making ABC News so squeamish:

Fetus = Human Being

(And on a completely different but entirely ironic note, this article is linked on the same ABC webpage:  Has Medical Journalism Sold Its Soul?   As the funnyman said, the best material writes itself.)

Newborns Cry With An Accent, Study Finds – ABC News.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »