Why is this relevant? Well, as another IBD editorial on Thursday noted, EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz, who became deservedly infamous last week when his public articulation of his "Crucify Them" philosophy towards enforcement of environmental laws and regulations in a speech a year ago was exposed, really loves the film, which industry officials have shown is riddled with deceptions and outright falsehoods. Not only that, he was also involved in making it:

---

Armendariz said in the same speech his proudest moment in his first year at EPA was to have its enforcers watch “Gasland,” an anti-fracking propaganda documentary financed by the government of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, who also opposes all U.S. drilling. Armendariz collaborated with its makers, and got his name in the credits.

IBD could have and perhaps should have gone much further in its criticism of Antagonistic Al. Armendariz, whose resume communicates what should be a high level of relevant scientific expertise, had to throw any fealty he had to the scientific method overboard by becoming associated with the "Gasland" and praising its final result.

The Independent Petroleum Association of America's Energy In Depth blog thoroughly debunked so much of what is in "Gasland" in June 2010 that one almost has to conclude that the list of truths in the film was miles shorter than the list of false assertions and contentions. The film misstated facts about provisions in laws passed by Congress; misrepresented the degree to which fracking is currently regulated; completely miscommunicated key facts relating to the fracking process; recycled long-discredited environmentalist memes; and in at least seven instances, in the blog post's words, was "just making stuff up." In February 2011, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences ignored industry objections to the film's eligibility for an Academy Award. Well, at least it didn't win. Sorry, Hugo.

Further, it would appear that:

• One of the film's "hooks," namely that producer Josh Fox was offered $100,000 for the right to drill on his land, is highly questionable at best and complete fiction at worst. This claim was parroted in a June 1, 2010 Associated Press story, which also relayed Fox's claim (with what I believe to be little or no skepticism) that he was still receiving such offers. A separate EID blog post on June 7, 2011 by Tom Shepstone makes a compelling case that it's virtually impossible that Fox received such an offer, and that if he did, it couldn't have come from the company whose documents are, according to Shepstone, the only ones which conform "with the format and wording of the document displayed in Gasland."
• Another dramatic hook, namely "the much-vaunted and disturbing image of flammable running water from faucets," is similarly bogus in the supposed "lesson" it tries to communicate: "Well yes, apparently many can (do this) – but sadly for Gasland, for reasons au naturelle. Fox highlights the instance of a flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colorado pinning the blame on gas development. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission however disagree(s), maintaining, 'Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [natural occurring] in origin” and they found “no indications of oil and gas related impacts to the water well.'"
• In general, filmmaker Josh Fox is a guy who isn't exactly wedded to the concepts of total accuracy and thorough vetting, having been quoted as follows: "I’m sorry but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions."

Armendariz's involvement with "Gasland," especially as an alleged scientist, his praise of its deeply deceptive content, and his eagerness to brainwash his subordinates with it, all should make it obvious that he is unfit to hold his EPA post or any other position involving regulation.

Following the lead of the Obama administration, which IBD correctly asserted is protecting Armendariz, the establishment press is ignoring the aforementioned crucial elements of this story. Just two examples: The Associated Press, which on Thursday covered the EPA administrator's "apology" while erroneously reporting that Armendariz's outlook only applies to "bad players" who are "not complying with the law (Christopher Helman at Forbes made mincemeat of that claim by recounting the EPA's fantasy-based attempted crucifixion of Range Resources), has done no follow-up story in the intervening 2-1/2 days. Similarly and just as incorrectly, John M. Broder at the New York Times's Green Blog on Thursday claimed that Armendariz's crucifixions remarks targeted "some violators of pollution laws." Helman demonstrated that Range Resources violated no laws, and thanks to its corporate spine eventually forced an EPA courtroom retreat.

What's described here exemplifies yet again how reading key stories and editorials at Investor's Business Daily is indispensable if one wishes to be truly informed, because it so often addresses and exposes matters the establishment press should be covering — and won't — and is absolutely fearless in calling them out.

As to Armendariz's continued presence at EPA, I wrote on Thursday that "If this guy holds onto his job — forget the 'apology,' which can’t possibly undo Armendariz’s outlook as practiced — we will know all we need to know about the Obama administration’s regulatory mindset."

Well, now we know, and there can be no remaining doubt.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

In covering GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's appearance at the annual National Rifle Association convention in St. Louis yesterday, Associated Press aka Adminstration's Press reporter Charles Babington pretended to know nothing about President Barack Obama's opposition to basic Second Amendment rights. At least I hope he was pretending, because Obama's hostility to the right to keep and bear arms is longstanding, well-known, and did not stop when he swore an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" on January 20, 2009.

I have excerpted Babington's first four paragraphs plus three others. I will follow that with a rundown of Obama's pre-2008 gun-hostile record, his meeting with the Brady group in May 2011, and this "little" thing called Operation Fast and Furious Babington and his establishment media colleagues have mostly deliberately ignored for well over a year (bolds are mine throughout this post; HT to a frequent emailer):

---

Romney: Obama will erode the rights of gun owners

The presidential campaign briefly veered from the emotional Mommy Wars on Friday to the back-burner issue of gun rights, with Mitt Romney telling the National Rifle Association that President Barack Obama is not protecting gun owners – even though the topic has rarely arisen during his time in office.

Without offering details, Romney said that Obama would like to erode gun owners' rights.

"We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told thousands of NRA members in St. Louis for their annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

Obama has said relatively little about firearms, deeply disappointing gun-control groups. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president's record "makes clear the he supports and respects the Second Amendment, and we'll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters."

… Asked for details to support the claims, Romney's campaign said Obama has appointed judges, including Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who have supported moves such as placing temporary limits on importing semiautomatic assault weapons. The campaign said Attorney General Eric Holder has not adequately backed people's rights to own and use firearms.

But gun-control groups such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence have expressed dismay over the lack of attention to their concerns. In its most recent assessment, in 2010, the group flunked on Obama on all seven issues it deemed important.

Campaigning in 2008, Obama said: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. … There are some commonsense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

Well, Charles, if it's "details" you want, details you'll get.

Here is a rundown of Obama's gun-hostile history which I posted in late October 2008 by reference to a more complete rundown prepared by the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action:

• Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.
• Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.
• He voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
• He has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.
• Obama also supports local gun bans in Chicago and other cities.
• Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.
• Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.
• Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.
• Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.
• Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping, one-gun-a-month sales restrictions, a ban on inexpensive handguns, gun owner licensing and gun registration, and mandatory waiting periods.
• Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

My post also notes that Babington's then-colleague Nedra Pickler wrote in February 2008, with no sense of irony, that Obama "said he does not intend to take away people’s guns," but "voiced support for the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns." But after the Supreme Court's Heller ruling overturning the DC ban in late June, Obama said "he supports the decision."

My post goes reference another very important and less-known matter, namely that Obama worked with a group which conspired to create the artificial appearance of legal scholar-based opposition to Second Amendment rights, and almost succeeded:

During Obama’s tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

In 1999, midway through Obama’s tenure, the Joyce board voted to grant the Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000, a staggering sum by law review standards. The Review promptly published an issue in which all articles attacked the individual right view of the Second Amendment.

(The Review) solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment. ….. Joyce had bought a veto power over the review’s content.

….. The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.

….. The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) ….. expand(ed) its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the “Second Amendment Research Center” as a thinktank headed by anti-individual-right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation.

….. The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right to arms.

….. The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

If that's not enough for Mr. Babington, let's look at a May 2011 example of Obama stealth (HT Hot Air) which seems to run in the same vein as his promise to Russia's Medvedev that he'll have more flexibility" after winning reelection (internal links were in original):

While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

The Washington Post did a story on Steve Croley, the White House gun control czar. Croley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on "large magazines."

The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda."

She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House's options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. "Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering. "

I guess Mr. Babington might be able to claim that he wasn't really lying when he wrote that the topic of gun control "has rarely arisen," and that "Obama has said relatively little." But, as just seen, at least one time when the topic arose and Obama said something, it was to make the point that he is "working on" gun control.

Finally, a bit on Fast and Furious from Darrell Issa, who also spoke at the NRA convention, as relayed by Katie Pavlich at Townhall, including its relationship to the administration's just-described gun control goals:

Entering the Edward Jones arena to an applauding audience at the NRA Annual Convention in downtown St. Louis Friday, Congressman Darrell Issa made it clear his congressional investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal isn’t going away until the Obama Justice Department comes clean.

 

“The investigation of Operation Fast and Furious will not end until the full truth is exposed to every American,” Issa said, adding senior officials at the Department of Justice will be held accountable for the lethal program, including Attorney General Eric Holder.

“Eric Holder’s contempt for Congress and his failure to comply will not go unanswered, and you can count on me,” Issa said as a woman yelled, “Thank you!”

… Issa also touched on the motivations behind Operation Fast and Furious and how liberal Democrats in Congress have reacted to revelations in the scandal.

“Fast and Furious can be seen as nothing else but a needless attack on our right to keep and bear arms,“ Issa said. “When the facts began to come out about Fast and Furious, no surprise, Democrats in Washington, immediately seized on the opportunity to talk about the need for additional gun control laws.”

For months, I have been stressing the importance of understanding Operation Fast and Furious was not a “botched” program or an accident. Instead, DOJ officials made calculated decisions to allow some of the most ruthless criminals in the world to help themselves to American guns, while throwing law abiding gun dealers under the bus.

The bottom line for Charles Babington is that Mitt Romney is right. He either should know this and doesn't, making him extraordinarily ignorant, or he does know it and won't acknowledge it. All in all, it's just another typical Obama-supportive report from the Adminstration's Press.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Less than two weeks after his suspension for previous intemperate tweets was lifted, Roland Martin was engaging in personally insulting "mis-tweetment" again this afternoon with PJ Media's David Steinberg.

In a series of tweets at around 5 p.m. tonight seen after the jump, Steinberg criticized Martin for spending so much time on the press's Trayvon Martin obsession — where one person tragically died — while ignoring the impact and meaning of the documents leaked by an unnamed Department of Justice official relating to the Fast and Furious "gunwalking" scandal — as a result of which "at least 300 Mexicans, plus at least two American law enforcement agents" have been killed. Martin's responses were immature, insulting, condescending — and all too typical of a press corps which, now that it is seeing poll results it doesn't like, has in certain cases taken to calling voters stupid.

From Martin's Twitter feed (reads from the bottom up; most offensive tweets by Martin are in orange boxes):

There's also this, from Steinberg:

Roland Martin apparently isn't interested in learning anything. His interest, that of his network, and that of the preponderance of the national press would appear to be advancing anything which might be perceived as helping the reelection prospects of Barack Obama, and deliberately suppressing genuine news which might hurt him. Legitimate journalistic considerations seem to pale in comparison.

Though tempting, it might not be a good idea to lobby CNN to suspend Martin again. I sort of like how he’s showing the world who he really is, and what his continued employment says about the network which employes him.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Last week, in the wake of the burning — more like the gutting — of the Institut d’Egypte in Cairo and the destruction of and serious damage to thousands of priceless books, manuscripts, documents, and artifacts, Batrawy attempted to deflect blame to the military (which did have a role, as will be seen later) for not sufficiently protecting the building instead of placing it on the arsonists who did the damage. And of course, you'll search in vain for any references to the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafi radicals, or Islam. I guess Batraway didn't want anyone to get any kind of crazy idea that this "Arab Spring" enterprise which Western news outlets so gullibly embraced earlier this year isn't exactly working out. Here are several paragraphs from the AP repoter's dispatch (bolds are mine throughout this post):

---

Thousands of rare documents burned in Egypt clash

Volunteers in white lab coats, surgical gloves and masks stood on the back of a pickup truck Monday along the banks of the Nile River in Cairo, rummaging through stacks of rare 200-year-old manuscripts that were little more than charcoal debris.

The volunteers, ranging from academic experts to appalled citizens, have spent the past two days trying to salvage what's left of some 192,000 books, journals and writings, casualties of Egypt's latest bout of violence.

Institute d'Egypte, a research center set up by Napoleon Bonaparte during France's invasion in the late 18th century, caught fire during clashes between protesters and Egypt's military over the weekend. It was home to a treasure trove of writings, most notably the handwritten 24-volume Description de l'Egypte, which began during the 1798-1801 French occupation.

… "The burning of such a rich building means a large part of Egyptian history has ended," the director of the institute, Mohammed al-Sharbouni, told state television over the weekend. The building was managed by a local non-governmental organization.

Al-Sharbouni said most of the contents were destroyed in the fire that raged for more than 12 hours on Saturday. Firefighters flooded the building with water, adding to the damage.

… Zein Abdel-Hady, who runs the country's main library, is leading the effort to try and save what's left of the charred manuscripts.

"This is equal to the burning of Galileo's books," Abdel-Hady said, referring to the Italian scientist whose work proposing that the earth revolved around the sun was believed to have been burned in protest in the 17th century.

… Volunteer Ahmed el-Bindari said the military shoulders the brunt of responsibility for using its roof as a position to attack protesters before the fire erupted.

"When the government wants to protect something, they do," el-Bindari said. "Try to reach the Interior Ministry or Defense Ministry buildings. You won't be able to."

In an op-ed at YNetNews.com, Guy Bechor is refreshingly direct in delivering the ugly truth:

Welcome to Cairostan
Op-ed: Egypt’s radicals eliminating country’s connection to West, but does anyone care?

It was barely mentioned in the Israeli and global media, but the following event pertains to the whole of Western civilization: Last Saturday, violent groups of Islamic-Salafi radicals burned the famous scientific institute established by Napoleon in Egypt after its first encounter with the West. Some historians consider it the start of modern times in the Middle East.

The site, L’Institut d’Egypte, held some 200,000 original and rare books, exhibits, maps, archeological findings and studies from Egypt and the entire Middle East, based on the work of generations of western researchers. Most of the artifacts were lost forever, burned or looted.

… it was a symbolic, intentional act. Those who burned the building and its artifacts meant to burn the era of logic, enlightenment, research and individualism.

This was a grave provocation against the whole of Western civilization, a desire to disconnect from science, research and modernity, while cynically using a Western means – that is, democracy – in order to take power.

One need not go all the way to blowing up the pyramids, as some of Egypt’s Salafis wish to do after they seized some 35% of the new parliament seats (alongside 40% of the Islamic brotherhood,) and there is no reason to go as far as Afghanistan, where the Taliban blew up the huge Buddha statues. The elimination of Egypt’s non-Muslim past is already here.

Anything that dates back to the Pharaohs, that is ancient, or that is Western is destined to be destroyed, and the mission has already been launched in the most symbolic manner: The outset of Egypt’s modern era, which the Salafis seek to erase, and in fact rewrite. This is a battle for writing the history of Egypt and of the Arab and Muslim world.

… All of this is happening while the confused West is lauding the new democracy established in Egypt, without understanding that this democracy is erasing the historic Egypt that was intimately connected to the West and its culture; a new Egypt shall rise on the ruins of the great fire. What we are seeing here is not a battle for power, but rather, a battle for perception, memory, heritage and historiography; that is, the writing of history.

… And who is supposed to raise a hue and cry over the burning of Egypt’s Western past? Who is supposed to be greatly disturbed by the fact that Egyptian authorities are having trouble protecting their own museums? UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Yet not much is happening there. Well, we can’t blame this organization; after all, it is preoccupied with admitting “Palestine” into its ranks.

At National Review, Mark Steyn identified something about the military's role in the Institute's burning which I suspect the AP's Batrawy knew or at least suspected but did not disclose — instead, as seen above, deflecting to the opinion of a likely uninformed volunteer:

The Torch Has Been Passed to a New Generation

In Egypt, the short version of the Arab Spring is that after 60 years the Nasser/Mubarak military has decided to throw its lot in with the Muslim Brotherhood. Given that for three decades the army was largely funded and its senior officers trained by the United States, at least we won’t have to waste a lot of time on “Who lost Egypt?” analyses.

The consequences for Copts, women, Israeli Embassy staff, etc., have been clear for some time. But just as important over the long run may be the loss of historical memory. A few days ago, during the recent military crackdown, the Institut d’Egypte was burned to the ground — mainly because young soldiers either joined in the gleeful savagery or declined to prevent it. Millions of manuscripts were lost.

Batrawy's AP story and other coverage of the Institute's burning indeed received very light coverage, as YNet's Bechor contended. A Google News search on "library burning egypt" (not in quotes, sorted by date, with duplicates) returned about 170 relevant results out of the 245 listed. That's barely a blip, and in my view hardly an accident.

Meanwhile, the Arab Spring's descent into a winter nightmare continues in Egypt — and elsewhere, mostly unreported and underreported.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Late Friday afternoon, Todd Shields at Bloomberg News broke a story about some guy, who happens to be an Obama and Democratic Party donor (but not disclosed), against whom the Securities and Exchange Commission is formally considering an enforcement action (also not disclosed, though it was noted at the New York Times's Dealbook Blog five hours before Shields's report), whose "wireless service caused interference to 75 percent of global-positioning system receivers examined in a U.S. government test." Though it generated a fair amount of center-right blog discussion over the weekend, the establishment press largely ignored the stunning result.

Earlier this evening, Shields and Alan Levin reported even more troubling info (as carried at the San Francisco Chronicle; bolds are mine throughout this post):

---

Falcone's LightSquared Disrupts Plane Safety Gear in Testing

Philip Falcone's LightSquared service disrupted airplane safety equipment in U.S. tests of the proposed wireless network, government officials said.

Signals from LightSquared equipment caused "interference with a flight safety system designed to warn pilots of approaching terrain," according a statement from the Defense and Transportation departments distributed today by e-mail.

The safety gear relies on the global-positioning system. U.S. officials are testing for interference with GPS devices as they consider whether to let LightSquared operate its network. The service would let clients such as Best Buy Co. offer cheaper wireless services and products, LightSquared Chief Executive Officer Sanjiv Ahuja said in a Dec. 9 interview.

… LightSquared's effect on the air-safety system was the subject of a separate analysis by the Federal Aviation Administration, according to today's statement.

… The safety system displays any terrain or man-made obstruction in the path of an aircraft. If a plane flies too close to danger, the system sounds increasingly dire warnings urging a pilot to "Pull up!"

These devices have been required on turbine-powered aircraft since 2005 and are credited with nearly eliminating crashes in which pilots hit the ground in darkness or bad weather, according to the FAA. The system uses GPS to determine a plane's position, which it matches against a worldwide database of terrain, radio towers, buildings and airports.

Once again, Shields failed to report that Falcone is a heavy Obama and Democratic Party donor, or the existence of the SEC's consideration of enforcement action against Falcone, described thusly by the Times:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is putting Philip A. Falcone on alert.

Mr. Falcone, a hedge fund manager, received a Wells Notice from the commission on Thursday, according to a filing made by his firm, Harbinger Capital Partners. The agency typically sends those notices when it is considering an enforcement action against someone. Omar Asali and Robin Roger, two Harbinger board members, also received the notices.

The notices stem from possible "violations of the federal securities laws' anti-fraud provisions in connection with matters previously disclosed and an additional matter regarding the circumstances and disclosure related to agreements with certain fund investors," according to the filing.

Although the filing does not specify charges or allegations, the notice is likely related to a disclosure Harbinger made to investors. In April, the firm said it was being investigated for possible market manipulation in the trading of undisclosed debt securities from 2006 to 2008. Mr. Falcone has also been investigated over whether a $113 million personal loan he made to himself, using his firm’s funds, was disclosed to investors in a timely manner.

Such trivial matters are not news at all at most establishment press outlets, including the Essential Global News Network known as the Associated Press. A search on Falcone's last name at the AP's main national site comes up empty, and Lightsquared's name is mentioned only in passing in an unrelated AP article about Clearwire.

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey provided background the press has totally ignored on Saturday (links were in original):

If that was all there was to this story, then this would just be another commercial venture that struck out, with little interest outside the tech fields involved.  However, the overwhelming failure of LightSquared’s test puts allegations from last summer in a new light.  In September, four-star Air Force General William Shelton accused the White House of pressuring him in August to change his Congressional testimony to make his assessment of LightSquared more favorable.  Another Congressional witness told Eli Lake that the White House had “offered guidance” on how to testify favorably towards LightSquared.

Why is this important?  Philip Falcone is a big donor to the Democratic Party, and he has billions of dollars at stake in LightSquared’s approval.  Also, Obama himself was an investor in LightSquared at one point, as were or are a number of his associates.  The resounding failure in this test makes it look like the White House pressured witnesses to back off of exposing LightSquared’s product as exactly the kind of dangerous problem that critics had maintained all along — with the intent to mislead Congress into moving forward with LightSquared’s government contracts.

Is this administration really going to ultimately green-light LightSquared, thereby disrupting the GPS system, and even risking the safety of air travel, in the name of granting favors to a corrupt crony? We may be witnessing a high-tech "All My Sons" scenario conducted in broad daylight.

Is the press, including Bloomberg, which is negligently sticking to the technical details without addressing the corruption — something which certainly would not be happening if a Republican or conservative were in the White House — really going to look the other way while all of this happens? If so, why do they bother coming to work every day?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

On November 15 (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I compared how two of the leading wire services, Reuters and the Associated Press, covered the announcement by Geron Corp. of its decision to halt the first government-approved clinical trial involving embryonic stem cells. Reuters fairly noted that "teams working with adult stem cells — a less ambitious area — are making good progress." While one could quarrel with the characterization of adult stem cell research as "less ambitious" (unless you throw in cloning, which is what sometimes seems to be embryonic researchers' primary area of intrigue), its "good progress" descriptor was fair. Meanwhile, the Associated Press's coverage of the same story failed to even recognize the existence of adult stem cell research.

Wesley Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism and an influential prolife author, has observed that the establishment press has largely come down where AP did. A Friday Catholic News Agency item elaborates (bolds are mine):

---

After researchers in California called off a major U.S. embryonic stem cell study, a legal expert says that most major news outlets have given zero coverage to the far superior benefits of adult stem cells.

“Since embryonic stem cells were first derived, the media has told a materially unbalanced story,” said Wesley J. Smith, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism.

Smith said in a Nov. 23 interview with CNA that successful adult stem cell clinical trials “have either been ignored totally, or generally underplayed as story after story has claimed adult approaches offer more limited benefits than embryonic.”

His remarks come as the California-based biopharmecuetical company Geron announced on Nov. 18 that it has dropped a widely publicized embryonic stem cell research study. (actually, the announcement occurred on November 14 — Ed.)

… However, despite the widespread advances of adult stem cell research as a potential cure, Wesley argued that media coverage on the topic has been scarce if not non-existent.

“No one forced editors and reporters to ignore the press releases and published studies that described the ongoing and very encouraging adult stem cell successes. They simply usually chose to overplay embryonic and underplay adult stem cell research in their reporting.”

Smith believes that a contributing factor to this is that the media generally view issues through a political or religious lens.

He said that “disdain for pro-life views” as well as “anti-Catholic” sentiments can impact a particular news outlet's analysis “of what constitutes an important story.”

“The media are particularly biased on 'cultural' issues and the embryonic stem cell controversy fits right in with that paradigm,” he added.

Smith offered specifics in a column appearing in the November 28 print edition of The Weekly Standard:

You would think Geron’s failure would be very big news. Instead, it turns out that the mainstream media pay attention only when embryonic stem cell research seems to be succeeding—so far, almost exclusively in animal studies. When, as here, it crashes and burns, it is scarcely news at all.

… The Los Angeles Times may be the most egregious offender. A chronic booster of Geron’s embryonic stem cell research, it reported the FDA’s approval of a human trial on January 24, 2009, in a story that began, “Ushering in a new era in medicine .  .  . ” The paper stayed on the story. In October 2010, it reported that the first patient had received an injection, then a few days later it ran a feature about the study under the headline “Hope for Spinal Cord Patients.” During the same period, however, the paper did not report the encouraging results of early human trials of treatments for spinal cord injury developed using adult stem cells.

Then last May, the Times celebrated the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine’s $25 million loan to support Geron’s study, noting that the company’s stem cell product had performed as hoped in rat -studies. Yet the day after Geron’s embryonic stem cell research unit was laid off, the Times couldn’t find the space to print the story, though the following day a blog entry ran on the Times website.

Similarly, the San Francisco Chronicle, which had given front-page exposure to a local company when Geron’s trial got underway, reported the failure of that trial in a small report on the back page of the business section. The New York Times, always quick to applaud embryonic stem cell research, placed a small story at the bottom of page two of the business section. Other outlets carried muted reports, many focusing either on the business consequences for Geron and its stock price, or on the two other human embryonic stem cell trials currently underway, for eye conditions, run by Advanced Cell Technology.

No one should be surprised by the double standard. The media have always been in the tank for embryonic stem cell research, often breathlessly reporting hype and spin from company PR spokesmen as if it were hard news. This approach sprang largely from the media’s antipathy for the pro-life movement, the most prominent opponent of research requiring the destruction of human embryos.

… How did the New York Times report this story? It didn’t. The L.A. Times? A blog entry. USA Today? Nada. San Francisco Chronicle? At least it was in the paper—on page A16, under the hardly descriptive headline “Regimen Shown To Aid Heart Patients.” And so it goes.

… the malpractice that plagues reporting in this field … is doubly regrettable, since not only are editors and reporters undermining the media’s already tarnished reputation for objectivity, but many suffering people and their families still have not heard the hopeful news generated by the ethical exploration of regenerative medicine.

That's the potential tragedy here. How many people who could be seeking and getting treatment aren't, because genuinely newsworthy developments in adult stem cell research aren't receiving the coverage they would be getting if so many in the press weren't so obviously biased against it?

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The original source for this "claim" is a very poorly written and quite deceptively headlined October 3 item at the Christian Science Monitor by David Grant. The trouble is, Grant badly distorted an item at MSNBC's First Read blog which, while quite critical of Cain, said nothing about "suspending" or "taking a month off" from the campaign (internal links are in original; paragraph breaks added by me):

Raising (and lowering) Cain: After his straw-poll win in Florida, Cain is getting a second look from conservative opinion-makers. The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger has called Cain “a credible candidate” who “deserves a serious look,” while Michael Barone now labels him “a contender.” And over the weekend, Cain won another straw poll, this one sponsored by the National Federation of Republican Women.

One reason why he’s resonating with conservatives is that he’s a non-politician with a business record (which might explain why Cain’s getting a second look but Rick Santorum isn’t). So Cain now has his moment, and guess what: He doesn’t appear to be using it. For starters, with about three months until the Iowa caucuses, he’s going on a book tour for much of October. Second, he's not scheduled to be back in Iowa until mid-November. And third, his communications director just left his campaign — to work for the re-election of Louisiana’s lieutenant governor (!!!).

Those aren’t just signs of someone who’s unlikely to win the GOP nomination; they’re signs of someone who isn’t really trying to win, a la Mike Huckabee in 2007-2008. Cain does, however, meet with Donald Trump today. If you judge Huckabee’s 2008 campaign as a success, then Cain is on a successful path.

MSNBC's take is at least plausible (though I believe incorrect), but please note that there's no reference to campaign suspension or "leaving the trail."

That didn't stop the CMS Decoder's Grant from making it up in an item posted on Monday (note: before Chris Christie's noncandidacy announcement; bold is mine):

Herman Cain leaving the campaign trail: Why now?

The Hermantor Experience is, by almost any measure, the hottest thing going in the GOP presidential primary (not named Chris Christie).

As Decoder wrote last week, former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain is romping in straw polls (Florida, and, this weekend, the National Federation of Republican Women), killing it on social media, climbing in at least one national poll, and promoting a new book. Columnists at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner have both given him love.

It’s momentum and recognition that the Rick Santorums and Jon Huntsmans of the GOP world must be lusting after.

But Cain seems destined to squander it. And here’s why.

As NBC’s thoughtful First Read points out this morning, Cain's promoting a book – and appears to be taking himself off the campaign trail for almost a month.

Isn't that great? The headline treats it as a given that Cain is "leaving the campaign trail," while the content subjectively opines that he "appears to be" doing so. The headline seems disgracefully deliberately designed to mislead some readers into thinking that Cain is not serious.

Continuing:

… Cain won’t be back in the key state of Iowa until November. With all of the jiggering of the Republican primary calendar, that means he’ll have six weeks (at best) to pound the trail before the Iowa caucuses in early January.

Perhaps equally telling, Cain's well-regarded communications director and her deputy are both leaving the campaign, with the director headed to… run press operations for Louisiana Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne in a tough primary election. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence in Cain’s presidential prospects.

… Cain won’t be back in the key state of Iowa until November. With all of the jiggering of the Republican primary calendar, that means he’ll have six weeks (at best) to pound the trail before the Iowa caucuses in early January.

Perhaps equally telling, Cain's well-regarded communications director and her deputy are both leaving the campaign, with the director headed to… run press operations for Louisiana Lt. Gov. Jay Dardenne in a tough primary election. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence in Cain’s presidential prospects.

… When you take yourself off the campaign trail just to flog a book, it raises the question: Why are you still around, Herman Cain?

Conceding that staff turnover is usually not the best thing in the world, as of this moment, at least five other items make Grant's critique particularly grating:

1. As of today, it's not a done deal that Iowa's caucuses are going to be in early January ("Iowa’s Caucuses may be held in the first week of January, with the possibility of a December date if New Hampshire’s primary moves much earlier"). Somehow, I think the Herminator can flex to a different timetable if he has to.
2. Plenty of candidates have either written books (or had books written for them) and "flogged" them during their campaigns. There's nothing unique about that.
3. Cain's calculation may be that spending October on as many talk radio and TV shows as possible might be a better way to gain the visibility and everyday voter awareness he sorely lacks and badly needs. Whether or not that turns out to be successful strategy, the idea that doing what he is doing is somehow not a form of "campaigning" is beyond absurd.
4. Campaign 101 says that the ground game doesn't become critical until about 2-3 weeks before the electoral event, especially one that doesn't have "early voting."
5. There's nothing preventing Cain from running radio and/or TV ads in Iowa well ahead of the caucuses. Or is that not "campaigning" either, Mr. Grant?

At to Mr. Grant's political acumen, roughly ten days ago, in a snarky Decoder item entitled "Why every GOP contender not named Rick Perry or Mitt is still running," he asked: "What the heck are all of these no-shot presidential contenders doing in the GOP field?" Cain was obviously among the "no-shots." Grant speculated that Cain wants to "elevate himself to 'party elder' status." He seems to have forgotten two "little" things:

• On the day he announced his candidacy to a wildly enthusiastic crowd of 15,000 in Atlanta, he told the audience as only Herman Cain can, "I'm not running for second!"
• Cain has a pretty good track record of achieving the goals he sets. (/understatement)

That Maddow ran with Grant's twist is hardly surprising.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

The Times has since corrected the column to reflect what the Guttmacher Institute reported, which is that (italics are mine) "the unintended pregnancy rate among poor women has jumped 50 percent since 1994." LiveAction.org's Lisa Graas and Jennie Stone both noted Blow's blunder earlier today. Each also strongly and eloquently criticized Blow for his profoundly antilife attitudes. Additionally, the Times columnist used a "from 2000 to 2009" statistic about child poverty to mask the fact that most of the rise in that statistic occurred during the final year of that time period, i.e., the first year of the presidency of you-know-who.

Ms. Graas's key contentions about Blow echo our President's attitude towards the idea of bringing unwanted pregnancies to term:

Blow slams people of faith for saying that if you get pregnant you should not abort and classifies children as “punishment" ("Even if you follow a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex [...]").

Blow makes clear a second time a contention that a child is “punishment” for sex and that people of faith desire this “punishment” ("This is what we’re saying: actions have consequences. If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex. You must be punished by becoming a parent even if you know that you are not willing or able to be one").

Blow refuses to say the word “abortion” while advocating for the acceptance of child killing ("We also have to preserve women’s birth options should they become pregnant, including the option not to give birth").

Blow claims unintended pregnancies are happening because of stigma or judgment about sex ("We have to remove the stigma and judgment around sex").

Ms. Stone, in asserting that Blow must believe that "having your life violently taken before birth is preferable to living a potentially difficult life" observes the pro-choice hypocrisy (bold is mine; internal link is in original):

(Blow's column) epitomizes the abortion-first mentality that the so-called pro-choice movement has today. If unintended pregnancy rates rise, the automatic solution advocated by the pro-choice lobby is to make sure the abortion rate rises, too. These restrictions include new laws like sonogram laws and parental notification laws, which are fundamental to a “pro-informed consent” and “pro-family” ideals. Funny, Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion chain in America who reported last year that 98% of their pregnancy “services” were abortion) claims to be all gung-ho about informed consent and a “pro-family” attitude, but ardently fights against the very laws that would provide women with both!

I fail to see how having your small and delicate body torn limb from limb, sucked into a jar, and thrown away as “medical waste” like a piece of garbage is preferable to living a life of potential difficulty and hardship. One need not be a religious advocate to understand that killing an innocent human being is wrong. How ironic it is that pro-choicers advocate that torturing an unborn child to death is an act of mercy.

Blow's statistical chicanery got an assist from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, which recently reported the following:

… over the last decade there has been a significant decline in economic well-being for low income children and families. The official child poverty rate, which is a conservative measure of economic hardship, increased 18 percent between 2000 and 2009, essentially returning to the same level as the early 1990s. This increase means that 2.4 million more children are living below the federal poverty line.

Readers will be shocked (no, not really) to learn that 58% of the increase cited occurred the final year of the period covered in the foundation's press release, but that the foundation "somehow" didn't see fit to report this one-year result (interactive foundation data source):

Perhaps (no, almost definitely), this press release oversight occurred because the data decay "just so happened" to occur during the recession lengthened by the Obama administration's non-stimulative stimulus followed by the early stages of what Investors Business Daily accurately described on Friday as "The Endless Economic Recovery."

Expressed another way, the number of children in poverty in the U.S. increased by more during the first year of the Obama administration than it did during the entire eight years of the eeeeevil Bush administration. During the final six years of the Bush administration, the child poverty rate as a percentage of the population basically held steady. In the first year of the Obama administration, it jumped by two points. Anyone want to take bets that it will go down when 2010's information is released?

Readers will be amazed (no, not really) that CNN abused the foundation's stats by asserting that "The worst recession since the Great Depression saw 2.4 million more children fall below the poverty line." No, that was the entire decade's change, as seen above.

Getting back to the original topic, congrats to LiveAction for showing how the Times's Blow really blew it, and for pointing out the ugliness of his supposedly "compassionate" stances.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

It really is a "plan," and don't you forget it.

Never mind, as the Washington Examiner's Conn Carroll inconveniently points out, that the document produced by the "Gang of Six" — Republican Senators Coburn, Chambliss, and Crapo, along with Democratic Senators Conrad, Warner, and Durbin — is all of five pages. If you take out the white space, it's about 3-1/2.

Early this evening, the Associated Press's Stephen Ohlemacher called the output of the Gang of Six a "plan" no fewer than 12 times — and his report's headline was "Bipartisan tax plan trims mortgage deduction." Okay, Steve, even though you (and the Gang) are obviously wrong, we get it.

A "plan" — at least one that is supposed to lead to legislation — is supposed to be "a detailed scheme, method, etc., for attaining an objective." The roughly 1,050 words in the AP writer's report is not that much shorter than the Gang of Six's almost 1,600-word "plan." Ohlemacher himself cites the document's lack of specifics or details in some manner about a half-dozen times. Sorry, Steve: The Gang of Six document is not a "plan" in any meaningful sense of the word, and their calling it a "plan" doesn't change that reality.

But give Ohlemacher and AP credit in one area: While the Gang of Six claims that "If CBO scored this plan, it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion," the wire service's coverage reveals that taxes would instead increase by almost as much or possibly more.

Here are several paragraphs from Ohlemacher's effort (bolds are mine). Note the class warfare hit in the final bolded item:

A new bipartisan plan to reduce government borrowing would target some of the most cherished tax breaks enjoyed by millions of families – those promoting health insurance, home ownership, charitable giving and retirement savings – in exchange for lowering overall tax rates for everyone.

Many taxpayers would face higher taxes – a total of at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade, and perhaps more.

… For its part, the Gang of Six plan punts on many of the most difficult issues, leaving it to congressional committees to fill in the details later. But supporters say it provides a framework to simplify the tax code, making it easier for businesses and individuals to comply while eliminating incentives to game the system.

… The Republican staff of the House Budget Committee issued a critique saying the revenue increase could exceed $2 trillion over the next decade, when compared with current tax policy.

"A tax increase is the wrong policy to pursue with so many Americans out of work," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

The plan would simplify the tax code by reducing the number of tax brackets from six to three, lowering the top rate from 35 percent to somewhere between 23 percent and 29 percent. That could provide a windfall for wealthy taxpayers because the 35 percent tax bracket currently applies to taxable income above $379,150.

Geez, Steve, higher-income people (who may or may not be "wealthy") would lose all kinds of deductions, but might still get "windfalls." In some cases, sure, but to present it as if it's a likelihood for most, which is definitely implied, is sheer speculation which is in my estimation backed up by little or no investigation.

The Examiner's Carroll points to the Gang of Six document's absurd assumption that the World's Greatest Deliberative Body will actually "find" (that's the document's actual word) massive amounts of spending to cut as anticipated:

The Armed Services Committee is then charged with finding $80 billion in cuts, Homeland Security $65 billion, Agriculture $11 billion, Energy $6 billion, and Commerce $11 billion. All this budgeting from Democratically controlled committees that haven’t produced a budget in over 800 days!!!

Indeed. What a joke. Without specifics, this isn't a plan, it's just a bunch of nice intentions at best, or deliberate deceptions at worst, which will never materialize.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

No matter what happens this November, we know what will be at least one aspect of the corporate media’s response: they will tell us that President Obama and the Democrats must move more to the center….

The truth is that neither President Obama nor the Democratic Congress has been particularly liberal. They have been liberal relative to the extreme right that the corporate media largely accepts, rationalizes, and enables as the new iteration of the Republican Party, and they have been marginally liberal relative to the corporatist conservatism of most in that media, but on an honest scale, that is not really liberal. 

Weird enough? Then there’s the belief that global warming is not just some kid sticking the mercury in hot cocoa, says DarkSyde, but then cocoa gives way to oral sex analogies:

If your child is sick and you want to check for fever, you use a thermometer. You don’t care what Rush Limbaugh says, or what Al Gore says, you care what that thermometer says. And if you want to be super careful, you might use more than one thermometer, or different kinds of thermometers, just in case that kid is dipping it in hot chocolate.

That’s what two climatologists did when they wanted to check on the earth’s past temperature. Just to be safe they used several different kinds of thermometers. Doesn’t matter what Rush says, doesn’t matter what Gore says, all that matters is what those thermometers say. And guess what they said? The earth has a fever, that fever is rising, and it’s approaching delirium.

The work was so exquisitely done, and it’s been so well supported by independent studies, that in any other nation the researchers involved would be up for major recognition. But not in teabagger America, where corporate rent-boys bought and paid for by fossil fuel johns drop to their knees on command to kiss some Koch.

Or there’s weird Nuremberg trial analogies for bankers from Drawline:

Justice in the 21st century is determined by billionaires. Capitalism unchecked brings you to another holocaust: First the holocaust of the environment and then the holocaust of the weak and powerless.

If we lose the house and senate, we will not be able to replace far right judges in the court system, and justice will keep on being for sale in this country and other countries that follow our lead.