Over at the Huffington Post, writer Steve Young has a great piece titled If the Media Reported on Democrats the Way they Report on Republicans.

Things are pretty bad when the best mainstream coverage of the absurd gulf between haves and have nots in America comes from a U.K. magazine that is a cheerleader for free market capitalism.

From The rich, the poor, and the growing gap between them, part of The Economist's Special Report Inequality in America, in the June 17-23 issue:

If you can remember that far back, before the invasion of Iraq, Dick Cheney and friends were arrogantly sure that (a) the cost of the war would be minimal, and (b)  Iraq's oil revenue would fund reconstruction efforts; it would virtually be a no-cost war, one that paid for itself.

Then, reality met fantasy and, as usual, reality prevailed.

This originally started off as a reply to fellow conspirator Lee over my last needlepoint over the FCC's handing out big fines, and it's grown into another direction, as you might could guess...

Haven't been sick in a while?  Miss that queasy sensation?  I've got just the sickening you need:  House Resolution 861 (it's 861 IH if you do an independent search on the Thomas locator).  You can always check out the whole thing, but the meat & potatoes (the red herring & corn?) are the numbered items at the end:

Finally, a way in which GW can be considered an exceptional president.

An old saw still rings true: "If you want it done horribly, have Washington do it...."

Truth and accuracy just may not always be the same thing.  Check out this headline, which turns out to be "true" but also to be very misleading if you read a little way into the story (emphasis added):

Remembering the Terri Schiavo circus, it's a hard question not to ask when you read this report:

One of the oldest principles in law is that you cannot have a right without a remedy.  It's common sense: If I have the right to enroll in a state college, and the college refuses my enrollment, there must be a way for me to overturn the college's decision for the right to have any real meaning.

But yesterday the Supreme Court seemed to trample on that principle.

Read Older Articles