Editorial bias at the AP

U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,380 By The Associated Press May 09 4:18 PM U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,378 By The Associated Press May 8, 7:25 PM U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,376 By The Associated Press May 7, 6:57 PM U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,373 By The Associated Press May 6, 6:45 PM

And, on and on it goes; the daily count of U.S. losses in Iraq. But, here is one headline that will never have an A.P. by-line:

U.S. abortion rate at 1.3 million per year

These deaths by abortion are ongoing but are not reported. Why not? What's the difference?

The difference stems from a strong bent, at the A.P., towards the leftist agenda; an agenda which includes being pro-abortion and includes having a rabid dislike of the current Administration.

So, the selective reporting by the A.P. on Iraq, including the daily count of losses, is done to advance their anti-Administration agenda. Likewise, advancement of their pro-abortion stance is accomplished by ignoring similar abortion statistics.

These two examples illustrate the selective approach to reporting at the A.P. It is apparent objective reporting at the A.P. has fallen victim to leftist ideology. As such, the A.P. fails at the role of unbiased provider of information to the public.

Tag: news and politics
Trackposted to Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, stikNstein... has no mercy, Right Truth, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

On Dinosaurs the Big Three carmakers

Panel Approves Fuel Economy Proposal [1]

A Senate panel released proposed legislation to require improved motor vehicle fuel efficiency:

It would raise the nationwide fleet fuel economy average by about 40 percent compared with the current levels of 25 mpg and increase standards by 4 percent a year from 2020 through 2030.

It is a softball piece of legislation; the automakers have until the 2020 model year to advance the fuel mileage to 35mpg. That's thirteen years from now.

Nevertheless, the wailing and gnashing of teeth has begun:

Domestic automakers and the United Auto Workers have said the proposal would be unattainable and threaten jobs at a time when General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group have already announced thousands of job cuts.

Alan Reuther, the UAW's legislative director, wrote that the proposal would force manufacturers "to close more facilities, destroying tens of thousands of additional jobs and undermining the economic base of communities across this country."

Alright, this the same old stuff the automakers have trotted out every time the Feds prod them into making changes: Seat belts, fuel economy, crash worthiness, etc.

Unattainable? The new standards don't kick in until 2020. That's thirteen years for them to catch up on what they should have been doing all along. And, I suspect they couldn't produce one shred of scientific evidence supporting the claim better fuel economy is unattainable.

As for job losses, what's causing that? Hardship meeting fuel standards? No, the Big Three are cutting jobs because they build inferior cars and no one wants to buy them.

So, to the Big Three carmakers: Cut the crap and start working. Or, like the dinosaurs before you, you will be crowded out by a new, more agile species.

Tag: news and politics
Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Rightlinx, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

On a woman's Right to Choose

The GOP lineup on TV the other day had a thing about abortion. You probably are more familiar with the MSM's euphemism "right to choose."

Now, consider this: A neanderthal type decides to beat up his pregnant other and the unborn child is killed. He's charged with felony assault and homicide. In other circumstances, a woman decides she wants to kill her unborn child and seeks an abortion.

So, I ask you, what is the difference between these two scenarios? Which, by the way, are not so far fetched. In either case, the child dies. Who has committed the greater transgression against human life?

Tag: news and politics
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Woman Honor Thyself, 123beta, OTA Wednesday, stikNstein... has no mercy, The Pet Haven Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, The Right Perspective, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

More fools

In this photo released by China's Xinhua News Agency, German expert Olav Hohmeyer, attending the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meeting, speaks during a news conference in Bangkok Thursday, May 3, 2007. Hohmeyer said that developed and developing nations have equal responsibilities and obligations to cut greenhouse gas emission, but developed nations should take the lead because of their advantages in technologies and resources. Hohmeyer was one of the authors of the third volume of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). (AP Photo/Xinhua, Ling Shuo

But, of course, if Herr Hohmeyer is so convinced of his position, he should take his argument directly to Merkel's government: Show us how it's done, in other words.

It won't happen. This whole global warming thing is directed at the most successful economies. And, global warming is only the vehicle, not the reason.

Tag: climate change
Trackposted to Right Pundits, Outside the Beltway, stikNstein... has no mercy, Pirate's Cove, The Amboy Times, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, Pursuing Holiness, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe and Samantha Burns.