PA Pundit

PennPatriot questions why Planned Parenthood is supporting Casey (my bolds):

Is the director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America missing something here? Bob Casey Jr. is an anti abortion candidate. So according to her speech, Cecile Richards feels that replacing an anti abortion U.S. Senator with another anti abortion U.S. Senator is some sort of big victory for the pro abortion agenda. I told you this is a wacky political year for the Democratic Party.

This is perhaps the best evidence that I have seen to date that exposes the Democratic Party for what they really are. To them the November election is more about regaining power than it is about debating ideas or standing up for their beliefs.I just cannot believe that the leading provider of abortions in America is supporting Bob Casey Jr. Pennsylvanians have the right to know how much money Casey Jr’s campaign has recieved from pro abortion groups like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.PennPatriot Online challenges Bob Casey Jr. and the leaders of his campaign to return any campaign money that was donated to them by pro abortion groups. Saying that you are anti abortion requires more than just saying the talking points. It takes action. If Casey doesn’t return the pro abortion lobby money pro life voters in Pennsylvania may begin to think that Casey Jr. is trying to “pull the wool over their eyes”.

Has Casey taken money from pro-abortion groups? If Casey is going to ask for the votes of pro-lifers in PA, he should answer this question. Similarly, Casey claims he is pro-gun. Has he taken money from gun-grabber groups?

Casey has recently accused Rick Santorum of double-speak and hypocrisy because Santorum didn’t translate his Spanish website quickly enough to suit Casey. If Casey says he supports a pro-life or pro-gun position but still accepts money from  interest groups that oppose those positions, that would truly be hypocritical.

Dan Savage at the Village Voice tells a pro-choice Democrat why he should vote for Casey. Anyone who is pro-life should read this to understand why the “abortion-on-demand” party would nominate someone with nominally pro-life views. Answer: they think it is their best chance to unseat Santorum and derail the pro-life movement.

Here is Savage’s column:

Q. I’m a Pennsylvania voter and I, too, am appalled at what Senator Rick Santorum represents in the U.S. Senate. However, before jumping on the Bob Casey bandwagon, please note that Casey is also anti-choice. The conscientious Pennsylvania voter is thus faced with a profound lack of alternatives. On balance, Casey is better than Santorum, but far from a desirable candidate. —Queasy Undecided in Pennsylvania

A. Yes, Bob Casey is opposed to abortion. But by electing him we’d take out Rick “Frothy Mix” Santorum, a much more rabidly anti-choice senator. Frothy Mix doesn’t think you should be able to choose masturbation, for crying out loud. Moreover, electing Casey could help Democrats take back the Senate, which will go a long way toward protecting choice, abortion rights, and other sexual freedoms— despite Casey’s stance on choice. So casting a vote for Casey or sending a contribution to Casey is a pragmatic, progressive, pro-choice bank shot. Electing one or two pro-life Dems is the price we’ll have to pay to put reliably pro-choice Dems in positions of power all over the Senate. And speaking of the ITMFA funds, people wrote in with tons of great suggestions for where the next ITMFA check should go, from Russ Feingold to Kinky Friedman to Jon Tester to Americans United for Separation of Church and State. But I’m going to go with Planned Parenthood. Not only is Planned Parenthood a kickass group, but giving a chunk of dough to the pro-choicers at Planned Parenthood neatly balances out, karma-wise, the donation I’ve already made to Casey.

Remember this the next time you read a newspaper article saying that Casey is going to split the pro-life vote. Think about this the next time you hear on the news/radio that pro-lifers don’t need to turn out in November because both candidates oppose abortion. And tell your friends. The Democrats nominated Casey in order to appeal to pro-life and religious voters– not because they respect such beliefs. If you’re still undecided, consider the fact that Kate Michelman from NARAL endorsed Casey.

Jon Robison, the blogger posting “I have to work for Bob Casey for Senate,”claims to be a Casey supporter, but the endorsement is so backhanded and cynical that it could pass for satire. I’m reprinting my favorite part below:

“This year I will do something which I have never done in over a hundred political campaigns. I am supporting a candidate who is openly opposed to a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion.Why? In one word – Santorum….In World War II, we had to make some unpleasant alliances to defeat fascism. I’m not comparing Santorum to Hitler — Mussolini, maybe — Francisco Franco definitely.”

I don’t agree with Jon’s comparison of Santorum to a fascist, but let’s follow Jon’s logic all the way. If Santorum is a fascist, would that make Casey Stalin in this analogy? Or perhaps he’s just a French Nazi collaborator in the analogy? Either way, voting for him is clearly distasteful to Jon Robison. And it’s not that flattering to Casey either.

This post by Kashmir on http://blog-about-bob-casey.blogspot.com/ made me laugh (my bolds inline):

A moment ago when I was talking about how conservative Santorum was and his stance on issues, you may have noticed that Bob Casey shares some of the same positions as Santorum: he is pro-life, ant-gun control, and pro-capital punishment so the question is what’s the difference between the two men? The answer seems almost too simple. Casey is a Democrat.

The fact that Casey is a Democrat means that like it or not he is going to have the likes of Harry Reid & Company breathing down his neck every time he doesn’t vote with them. Now Casey is a strong independent man but when it comes down to it he’s also a politician which means at some point he’s going to need the support of his party.

So basically…Casey has Kashmir’s vote because Kashmir is counting on the fact that Casey will eventually cave to the will of Harry Reid & Company in order to maintain the support of his party.

What does it say about a candidate when his supporters are voting for him despite their disdain for his principles because “when it comes down to it he’s also a politician” and likely to sell out his principles to get the “support of his party”?

Despite evidence to the contrary, the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Tom Ferrick continues to believe there are no WMDs in Iraq. He’s already attacked Rick Santorum- declaring that Santorum’s assertion WMDs were found in Iraq is “false.” Today he targeted Curt Weldon:

It’s a scene out of an Indiana Jones movie – or an Indiana Jones parody:

A caravan of jeeps and heavy equipment crawls across the Iraqi desert, headed for a secret location on the banks of the Euphrates River.

Their mission: to dig 25 feet down into the riverbed and unearth concrete bunkers filled with chemical weapons produced by Saddam Hussein’s regime and hidden before the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003.

And who’s that, dressed in a safari jacket and a pith helmet, supervising the dig?

None other than our own U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.), leading a secret mission to unearth the Holy Grail of the war: the weapons of mass destruction that have eluded every other U.S. search team since our troops invaded three years ago.

Weldon’s planned trip to Iraq was later canceled over security concerns after word leaked out to the media. Ferrick claims the planned trip was an “attempt at political showboating to the nth degree.”

He bases this claim on comments made by Dave Gaubatz, a former Air Force special investigator who worked in Iraq in 2003 as a contractor. Ferrick writes that Gaubatz was upset by comments made by Weldon in a meeting since WMDs “was treated as an election issue that would get votes.”

Ferrick writes that Gaubatz is totally credible:

If you find Gaubatz’s tale credible, as I do, then what we have here is an attempt at political showboating to the nth degree – and it’s not the first time Weldon has done it.

Question: Does Ferrick find all of Gaubatz’s tale credible or only the parts that are politically damaging to Weldon?

Things to Consider: Ferrick writes that he found “Gaubatz’s tale credible.” However, Gaubatz has stated repeatedly that “while in Iraq, he acqired what he considered reliable information on the existence of WMD caches in four locations” but “he never could get U.S. military officials to look into the matter.” Weldon, on the one hand, was willing to investigate Gaubatz’s claims. Ferrick, on the other hand, dismisses Gaubatz by writing  “he has persisted- even as evidence mounted that there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq.”

Answer: Ferrick uses Gaubatz to politically attack Weldon. Despite Gaubatz’s claim that WMDs are in Iraq (and declassified files that support this assertion), Ferrick continues to deny the existence of WMD in Iraq. However, he wholeheartedly accepts Gaubatz’s claim that Weldon is interested in this issue only because he wants to play Indiana Jones and engage in political showboating.

If Tom Ferrick wants to write biased editorials or political attack ads, then his column should appear in the editorial or commentary page rather than the front page of the “Local News” section.

Today’s “Dear Abby” column touched on the controversial topic of gay marriage, and several newspapers made a decision to edit Abby’s response, which supported gay marriage.

Blogger Mike Fitzpatrick links to the Dear Abby column in several newspapers across the country. Several papers ran it unedited, but others- including the Philadelphia Daily News- edited out Abby’s support for gay marriage. Fitzpatrick objects to the edits:

Amazingly, these papers have had no problems reprinting verbatim the nasty political admonishments uttered by right wingers like Ann Coulter, Senator Rick Santorum, or the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Agenda-driven punditry, of course, not only enflames passions – it sells a lot of extra copies too.

It’s so much better to edit sensible advice from a venerable observer of human nature.

While these papers run comments by Coulter, Santorum and others, that does not show they support those opinions. The Philadelphia Daily News has run several columns that support gay marriage, and other articles make their disdain for Rick Santorum clear.

Even though I disagree with Fitzpatrick’s comments, I’ll admit that I’m curious about this “Dear Abby” issue. I’d like to know whether the Philadelphia Daily News cut the “Dear Abby” column due to space concerns (e.g. it hit a word limit) or due to political reasons.

In case you were wondering, here is the Dear Abby column from today (the part in bold italics was removed from the Philadelphia Daily News but included in other papers):

Dear Abby: I am being married this summer to my fiancee of five years, Beth. I had always assumed that my brother, Mike, who is also my best friend, would be my best man. Mike is gay.

When I asked him, I was stunned at his response. Mike said he loves me and Beth, but refuses to be part of a ceremony celebrating something for which he is discriminated against emotionally, financially and socially. He refuses even to attend.

Now that I have been forced to confront this issue, I realize my brother is right. Beth thinks he should “get over it,” and he needs to accept that it’s just “the way things are in the world.”

As hurt as I am, I can’t hold against my brother his refusal to participate in what he refers to as a “reminder that he is considered a second-class citizen without the same civil rights” as I have.

How can I handle this without turning it into something that could overshadow what is supposed to be one of the happiest days of my life?
Disappointed in Westlake, Ohio

Dear Disappointed: By respecting your brother’s decision, and reminding your bride-to-be that accepting the status quo is not always the best thing to do. Women were once considered chattel, and slavery was regarded as sanctioned in the Bible. However, Western society grew to recognize that neither was just.

Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain have recognized gay marriage, and one day, perhaps, our country will, too.

My two cents: Dear Abby’s political bias influenced her to give bad advice. Assuming that the groom and bride are kind/loving to the gay brother, shouldn’t he show his support for them too? After all, the groom and bride don’t make the law in this country. Regardless of one’s opinion on gay marriage, can’t we all agree that it is a bit mean to skip your own brother’s wedding in order to make a political statement? Abby could have used this column to argue that love and family ties should take precedence over political beliefs. If the situation were reversed and a straight brother didn’t want to attend a gay civil ceremony because he didn’t agree with the gay lifestyle, I’m sure Abby would have told him that love for a sibling is more important.

I saw the following press release on SantorumBlog:

Vince Galko, Santorum Campaign Manager reaches out to Jay Reiff, Casey’s campaign manager.

Our initial conversations with Mr. Romanelli have been positive, and we are grateful that at least one of our opponents has come forward and is willing to discuss the issues. We hope that you will follow Mr. Romanelli’s lead and be willing to debate. The voters of Pennsylvania deserve no less.

With regards to Mr. Romanelli’s request for Democrats and Republicans to help him in his efforts to get on the ballot, I believe our campaigns should encourage our supporters to help Mr. Romanelli garner the necessary signatures he needs. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all agree that the democratic process should be open and welcoming to people of differing positions. Although I assume Mr. Romanelli and Sen. Santorum differ on many issues, we welcome a candidate to the debate who has the courage of his convictions.

As far as we are aware, the Santorum, Casey and Romanelli campaigns are the only campaigns on file with the Federal Election Commission for the U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania. Based on published reports, it also appears that Mr. Romanelli has already exceeded the number of signatures collected and filed by the Santorum and Casey campaigns in March of this year. Should Mr. Romanelli collect enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, our campaign will support his full participation in campaign debates. We hope neither the Casey campaign nor your allies within the Democratic Party will challenge his right to be on the ballot.

But I couldn’t find any coverage on Romanelli’s campaign in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. An internet search on Romanelli also didn’t turn up recent newspaper articles– aside from one article in March about his efforts to get signatures and several letters to the editor.

I don’t personally agree with the Green Party’s position on the issues, but they are the third largest political party in the US. While I realize that the Green Party has no realistic chance of actually winning a Senate or Congressional Race, isn’t it is odd that they are ignored by the press? As a voter, I’d be curious to see how the candidates from the two dominant parties respond in a contest of ideas to Green Party or Libertarian Party ideas.

The Media Research Center debunks Keith Olbermann’s claims that he is an unbiased reporter:

For someone who claims his editorial decisions have “nothing to do with a political point of view,” Olbermann has thrown nearly all of his punches at conservatives. Of the 197 politically-salient designees, nearly nine out of ten (174, or 88%) attacked conservative targets or ideas, compared with 23 nominees (12%) in which liberals were on the receiving end of Olbermann’s ire. Among those attacked by Olbermann: Bill Frist, Donald Rumsfeld, Antonin Scalia, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay and Pat Robertson (four times). Never targeted: Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, or even William Jefferson, the Congressman alleged to have stuffed tens of thousands of dollars in bribe money into his freezer. (See the complete listing of Olbermann’s liberal and conservative targets.)

I wrote earlier about a bloggers accusation that Rick Santorum would support abortion on “gay babies.” As I noted in that post, no pro-lifer would ever endorse this reprehensible concept. Pro-lifers believe all life is precious, and they do not support efforts to create “designer babies” by selectively destroying embryos.

Disability advocates have expressed concern about the use of selective abortions to “screen out” the disabled. They note that they had a right to be born.

Now that a widely publicized study has suggested that homosexuality might be an inherited trait, some bloggers have started to question if abortion would be used to “screen out” homosexuality from the population. This study has not definitively proved that homosexuality is genetic, but it still has caused quite a stir in the blogosphere .
Polipundit comments:

The BBC is reporting that a “man’s sexual orientation may be determined by conditions in the womb.”

That leads to two interesting questions.

Just as we treat other pre-natal conditions, should we not treat this condition as any other illness?

For those that are pro-choice, should we not offer screening for pregnant woman so that they can make a choice like they do with many other fetal conditions? (I can not answer that question because I am pro-life)

Gay Patriot picks up on Polipundit’s query and asks how this would affect the left’s position on abortion:

…how does the Gay Left now reconcile its historic, increasingly vocal and unavowed support of “abortion-on-demand rights” as also being intertwined with “Gay Rights”?

Speaking as someone from the Gay Left would (or should if they had principles): If a mother knew there were a biological increase in her baby being born gay…why not have the right to abort that baby? Or treat the suggested “antibodies” with a pre-natal genetic therapy to “cure” the gayness before it is born?

That seems to be the only intellectually honest position the Gay Left could have. Otherwise the Gay Rights movement should become stridently Pro Life in order to stop the soon-to-be Gay Abortions-On-Demand.

If the BBC study is correct and if it ever becomes possible to genetically screen embryos for homosexuality, the gay rights movement will have to make a choice. Will they align themselves with the abortion-on-demand left even if it means legalizing selective abortion to eliminate gays from the gene pool (aka eugenics)? Or will they make their peace with the pro-life right (also called the religious right by the media)? The religious right may not support gay marriage, but they would- without hesitation- support the right of every person to be born regardless of sexuality, disability or any other trait.

Then again the left might find another solution to the problem. One reader commented on Gay Patriot:

At any rate, the simple solution is to prohibit prenatal testing for homosexuality. If the mother doesn’t know whether her fetus is gay, she can’t decide to abort it because it is gay. There is no legitimate reason for her to have that piece of information.

Another solution, of course, is to criticize the scientists who engage in studies seeking to discover the mechanisms that give rise to homosexuality. If ever there was a piece of information that the world is too immature and irresponsible to possess, it is that. The certainty of eugenic misuse of that information outweighs the valid interest in pursuit of knowledge, a pursuit that may be resumed in the future, when humanity recovers from its malignant homophobia.

The problem with this solution is that it is completely hypocritical. The abortion-on-demand crowd believes “my body, my choice,” yet they would essentially deny a woman the choice to know if the baby she was carrying was gay. The reason for telling parents that their fetus is a male or female is not more legitimate than telling them their fetus is potentially homosexual. Will the left move to ban this information as well since they know that sex selection can- and does- lead to selective abortion? Or will they only deny information on homosexuality since they believe homosexuals should be a protected group in utero? As for criticizing scientists, doesn’t the left always accuse the right of being anti-science? Apparently that is a principle the left could discard whenever it isn’t convenient to their P.C. way of viewing the world.

A blogger named Cicero is my pick for “Wacko of the Week” for this post (my bolds inline):

“You Can be Anti-Abortion or Anti-Gay, But Not Both

New research shows that the more male babies a woman has the greater the likelihood she will give birth to a gay baby (gaby for short). This puts conservatives in a tough spot. The only way to reduce the number of future gay men is to start aborting male babies when a woman has too many of them. What are people like Rick Santorum to do? I suspect they would gladly support a woman’s right to choose if they thought it would lead to less gabies.

As described this week in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it is the number of boys a boy’s mom has already had — not the number of boys he grows up with — that best predicts whether that boy will be gay.

The mechanism behind this apparent maternal alchemy remains a mystery. But many scientists suspect that women mount a subtle immune system response against male fetuses that becomes stronger with each male pregnancy, ultimately affecting fetal brains in ways that influence sexual orientation.”

No pro-lifer would ever endorse murder. That would be a morally reprehensible act. The suggestion that pro-lifers like Rick Santorum would support abortion if they thought it would reduce the number of homosexuals is both offensive and ridiculous. In fact, it is the pro-choice group that supports the creation of designer babies. Pro-lifers oppose any suggestion of eugenics and playing God. See my previous post on this: http://papundit.wordpress.com/2006/06/27/the-ethics-of-eugenics-and-disability-the-sunday-times-misses-the-point/ 

You can find the complete interview with Rick Santorum at this link. Here is an excerpt:

John Hawkins: If someone said to you, “Rick, I am undecided between you and Casey. Give me three differences between the two of you that would convince me to vote for you.” What would you tell them?

Rick Santorum: First, I’d say taxes are a big difference. He is against the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003. He said he would like to raise…rates up to 50% for the top bracket. He is absolutely a traditional tax and spend Democrat. So on taxes and spending, he is for spending a bunch more and taxing a bunch more….

The second issue that I think is especially important, particularly for Pennsylvanians, is medical liability reform. That’s an issue that is just killing our commonwealth. We are losing doctors hand over fist. We had 9 maternity wards close down in the city of Philadelphia, 5 in the city of Pittsburgh. We have a real crisis on our hands and Bobby Casey is a trial lawyer. That’s what he did. He sued doctors before he got into politics and there is a big difference between him and me on (that) issue.

…Those are the two big economic issues that are facing us. On the cultural side, probably the biggest difference is on the issue of marriage. I strongly believe we need to protect the traditional family in America and he does not feel that way. He is not in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. He is not in favor of a State Marriage Amendment. He would do nothing to stop the courts from doing what they (inevitably seem to do), which is to…take this issue of what marriage is out of the hands of the people and have the courts decide it for us in a way that is against the way most Americans think it should be.

I’d like to hear Casey’s perspective on these points as well. What would his answer be to the question Hawkins posed? I enjoy watching political debates because they are a true contest of ideas. In a debate, candidates are given an opportunity to express themselves without interference or editorializing by supposedly unbiased reporters. It is a shame that the importance of debates has fallen in politics. Candidates respond to each other through campaign advertising and the media on a daily basis, but they only debate a few times during an election.

Wouldn’t it be nice to read more news coverage that consisted of each candidate answering the same questions and then printing their answers side-by-side without any edits? It would be a handy way for voters to compare positions on issues without being influenced by a reporter’s personal bias.

Medical liability reform is a great example of why this kind of side-by-side interview or written debate would be helpful to voters. Newspapers report on liability reform, but it is always possible for a reporter to select facts that favor one position. Those in favor of liability reform point to skyrocketing costs, closing hospitals, cases where people died due to an emergency room closing, etc. Those opposed to liability reform highlight cases of people permanently disabled, mothers whose babies died during delivery, etc. Supposedly objective and unbiased articles are often slanted- perhaps inadvertently.

Why not give readers the facts and trust them to form their own opinions? If one candidate attempts to distort the facts in his/her written response, readers and experts would catch the error and hold him/her responsible in letters to the editor and blog postings. Don’t we deserve more honest debates?

The Sunday Times published an article on genetic screening of embryos, entitled “Scientists Playing God? We should rejoice.” The article was so optimistic about the potential for science to eliminate genetic diseases from society that I was initially seduced by its argument.

Last week British scientists announced a revolutionary screening process for inherited diseases in embryos. It will be quicker and more accurate than the existing method and it will detect thousands more genetic defects than previously possible.

About 200 heritable conditions can be detected by pre-implantation diagnosis in IVF treatment so that only healthy embryos are implanted in the mother or frozen; the new technique — pre-implantation genetic haplotyping — will be able to detect nearly 6,000 diseases and conditions. As one of the British pioneers said, this changes everything. One could almost call it godlike.

What it means is that thousands of parents who are at known risk of passing on terrible disabilities and diseases will now be able to have only healthy babies. This is the best news I have heard for years.

Those who don’t know about it can perhaps hardly imagine the drawn out suffering of Huntington’s disease or Duchenne muscular dystrophy or Prader-Willi syndrome or Fragile X, both for the people affected and for their families, until death puts an end to it.

Nature is astonishingly cruel. Science, by contrast, has the power of mercy. One can only be dazzled by the inventiveness and compassion of the scientists involved in this screening breakthrough — “in action”, as Hamlet said, “how like an angel!”

Then, I read the next line:

Admittedly genetic screening means that embryos carrying disabilities and diseases will be discarded.

I thought this phrasing was callous, but the arrogance of the next paragraph shocked me:

It is a stretch, however, to use the word destroyed, or even killed, as the test is done on embryos that are only three days old. And what is appealing about this early screening is that it offers the hope that, in the foreseeable future, abortion and late abortion will be less frequently used in dealing with serious defects and disabilities.

It will be easier and better in every way to get rid of a tiny collection of cells. This is indeed playing God, as all the usual campaigners were quick to point out last week. But what on earth is wrong with humans playing God? I am all for it, especially as God doesn’t seem to be doing it.

The author’s comment that it would be appealing to reduce the number of late-term abortions due to disabilities and defects is telling. It shows recognition of the angst, pain and possibly guilt a pregnant woman would feel after making a decision to have a late term abortion on a child/fetus she wanted, carried for months, and loved until she was told by a doctor that it had a disability. The author is right that it would be easier “to get rid of a tiny collection of cells” instead, but I don’t believe it is the solution. Timing may play a role in legal decisions and/or the creation of a set of societal standards about screening for disabilities, but timing does not change the ethics of a decision. Whether a “tiny collection of cells” or a fetus in the sixth month is destroyed, someone is still making a decision to prevent birth based on the existence of a genetic disability.

The author dismisses objections with the following rational:

There will always be absolutists, who claim the right to life for even the most infinitesimal scrap of tissue. But there are others who oppose screening on what seem to me to be even more irrational grounds.

Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People said last week that she was opposed in principle to such screening on the grounds that it sent the signal that being born disabled was a bad thing. The mind reels. Over the years I have got used to the disability lobby talking in this spirit, so it no longer seems as absurd as once it did, but surely it must be obvious that it would be far better for a person not to have a disability than to have one.

It would be far better to be able to walk, or hear or see than not to. It would be far better not to have a miserable fate like Huntington’s or Fragile X. In a culture where many normal girls are obsessed to the point of illness with their minor imperfections, it is surely better not to have major impairments. In that sense, being born with a disability is obviously a bad thing.

For some reason the disability lobby seems to be in denial about this, perhaps because it’s in the grip of a logical muddle. Aspis made a typical expression of it when she wondered whether the intention of the screening was to remove disabled people. It sent a message, she said, particularly to young people with disabilities, that their lives were worth less than everyone else’s. This seems to me to confuse a disability with a person with a disability. (This is a confusion that people with disabilities normally resent, understandably.)

To say that a disability is undesirable in itself is not to say that a person with that disability is undesirable in herself, or her life worth less than someone else’s. The disability is not the person. It is to say that her life would be better without that disability. And saying it assumes that a person with a life and a history here in the world, with family and friends, is not the same as a minuscule collection of defective cells on a petri dish. One is dispensable, the other most certainly is not.

What a piece of work is a man and partly, now, it is the work of godlike humankind.

Is the statement of Simone Aspis of the British Council of Disabled People really irrational? While the author is correct that being born with a disability isn’t something people would choose and that “life would be better without that disability,” Aspis is making a point that many people would disabilities would prefer to be born.

The author denies that support for screening/destroying embryos of the disabled is equivalent to saying that a person with a disability “is undesirable in herself, or her life worth less than someone else’s.” To make that point, the author clarifies that she recognizes a difference between “a miniscule collection of defective cells on a petri dish” and a living disabled person– “one is dispensable, the other most certainly is not.” Yet the author fails to notice that she just made Aspis’ point– people who do support playing God are saying that a disabled person’s life is worth less than someone else’s and that a disabled embryo is dispensable.

Readers saw through the author’s attempt at moral equivalence. Here are some of the best reader comments online: (more…)

The media has largely ignored the discovery of WMD in Iraq- except to imply that it is not “new news.” Keith Olbermann on MSNBC declared that the claims were false. The Philadelphia Inquirer also dismissed the discovery as false. The Philadelphia Daily News asked “Why is Santorum beating a dead story” and called the statement “controversial – and wrong.”

Rick Santorum and Peter Hoekstra published an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal about the discovery of WMD and their efforts to declassify enough information in order to educate the American people on this threat:

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people. “Since 2003,” the summary states, “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” which remains “hazardous and potentially lethal.” So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.

Despite this information, many in the media continue to insist that the inconclusive Duelfer report was the final word on WMD in Iraq. For example, an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Friday used the Duelfer report in order to discredit the discovery of WMD (my comments inline):

…the report, while noting Hussein’s leftover chemical weapons could fall into the hands of terrorists, does nothing to undercut the assertion of U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer in November 2004 that Hussein had no active chemical weapons program at the time U.S. troops invaded in 2003. It suggested the weapons had been produced before the 1991 Gulf War. (papundit: If I follow this argument correctly, the Philadelphia Inquirer believes Hussein was not a threat in 2003 since there is no proof he was actively producing chemical weapons at the time. This logic is faulty. If Hussein stopped producing chemical weapons, does that mean he is no longer a threat? Hussein had no need to produce new chemical weapons since he had not destroyed his entire pre-91 stockpile. The discovery of those WMD shows that Hussein was a threat since he could have sold his existing stockpile of chemical weapons to terrorists or used them to harm the US or its allies. To imply otherwise is dishonest.)

Santorum and Hoekstra address the media accusations that this is “not new news” (my bolds):

On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte’s office arranged a press briefing by unnamed intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling it “not new news” even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating the obvious importance of the information: “What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it’s dangerous to our forces. . . . They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered.”

In fact, the public knows relatively little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, we do not even know what is known or unknown. Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq. It follows that the American people should be brought up to date frequently on our state of knowledge of this important matter. That is why we asked that the entire document be declassified, minus the exact sources, methods and locations. It is also, in part, why we have fought for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of Saddam-era documents.

The media can normally be counted on to argue for the declassification of documents, so their silence on this issue is uncharacteric. The New York Times has shown a willingness to leak classified information even when it harms national security, so why isn’t the New York Times and all the other media naysayers on WMD pushing to declassify the documents and to learn the truth on WMD? Can’t they handle the truth? Or are they afraid it would shatter their “Bush lied, People died” worldview?

Sometimes I’m surprised by how reporters will twist the facts to make a politically-motivated point. This article by Tom Ferrick in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday is a great example (my comments inline):

To: Sen. Santorum

From: Your Campaign Advisory Group

Re: Tactics & Strategy

As you know, the election is just over four months away and our private tracking polls confirm recent public polls. You are trailing Robert P. Casey (RPC) by mid-double digits. (papundit: Ferrick uses poll numbers as a weapon here. He subtly implies that Santorum is desperate due to low-poll numbers and will need to use dirty tricks in order to win. Yet Ferrick conveniently omits that recent poll numbers show the gap between Santorum and Casey is closing rapidly. This would have weakened his case against Santorum. And there is evidence that the polling gap is closing. In fact, the Scranton Times-Tribune reported on Friday that “Latest poll evaporates Casey lead.” )

Clearly, something must be done to make up the deficit in the next 120 days, lest you suffer defeat in the General Election (GE).

How to catch up with RPC and win the GE? We suggest a two-pronged strategy.

One is to saturate the airwaves with commercials presenting the “Rick Santorum Story.” These will be sepia-tinted-family-oriented 30-second spots that remind voters that you are, at heart, a sweet guy. (papundit: Santorum’s support for life issues, his initiative for long-term care for the elderly, his work to end puppy mills, and his leading role with Senator Lieberman on the Senate anti-poverty agenda all show that he is “at heart, a sweet guy.”) 

They are designed to draw back into your tent defectors among independent voters and moderate Republicans who, for some reason, consider you a “hairy-knuckled, mean-spirited, right-wing troglodyte,” as one target voter put it in our focus groups. (papundit: Who considers Santorum a “mean-spirited, right-wing troglodyte”? Is it the same group of completely un-mean-spirited people who have tried to turn his last-name into a disgusting word about fecal matter through an organized internet google-bombing campaign because they disagree with his position on gay marriage? Or perhaps Ferrick is referring to the abortion-rights advocates who revile Santorum for his pro-life stance? Wouldn’t these same voter groups also dislike Casey for his pro-life views as well?) 

These TV spots have tested well in the same focus groups. We call this the “Cuddles Initiative.” (papundit: Ferrick shows some bitterness and sarcasm here. Santorum has come from behind in previous elections, and one past victory was partially attributed to how well Santorum polled with married women voters who saw him as a family-man.)

Your recent statements against Hepatitis B can go a long way toward lessening concerns among these voters that you are – again quoting our focus group – a “heartless, harsh, judgmental twit.”

Why not Skippy?

It is also essential that you continue your attacks on RPC. Referring to him, in the diminutive, as “Bobby” is crucial.

Our opposition research has yet to turn up the “smoking gun” we can employ against RPC.(papundit: Really? What about Casey’s record of skipping work? Or the fact that he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants?)

But there are obvious avenues of attack. For instance, an exhaustive search of the record has uncovered no public statements by RPC on Hepatitis B. Accordingly, we are preparing a radio ad. Partial text:

“Hepatitis B is a disease that afflicts many Asian Americans and African Americans. Rick Santorum is against Hepatitis B. Yet Bobby Casey remains silent. What have you got to hide, Bobby? Why won’t you condemn this life-threatening disease…?”

However, these actions alone will not defeat RPC in the GE.

The other portion of our two-pronged strategy calls for you to rally your conservative base. Disheartened by the war, disillusioned with President Bush’s administration, your core constituency is in danger of staying home on election day. (papundit: Of course, Ferrick doesn’t admit that a core Democratic constituency is in danger of staying home on election day due to Casey’s pro-life position. He saw no need to be even-handed in this editorial.) 

They need to be energized with heavy doses of high-protein, red-meat issue mongering. We call this portion the “Cleaver Initiative.”

Your recent visit to Geno’s Steaks to stand behind Joe Vento’s neo-Know Nothing initiative against immigrants is a good first step. (papundit: To compare Joe Vento and Rick Santorum to the anti-Catholic and violent Know Nothing party is particularly despicable. Joe Vento simply asked that customers at his business speak English when ordering. Rick Santorum does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. This is in no way comparable with the nativist violence of the Know Nothing party, which attacked churches and discriminated against Catholics.) Though, as your campaign advisers, we were dismayed that you failed to use the line we had crafted for you to quip:

No hablo

“Spanish? We don’t speak no stinkin’ Spanish!”

It would have drawn a laugh and made the point.

Your efforts to tack to the right may be impeded by the fact that you don’t have much room left.

Your assertion last week that there are, in fact, WMDs in Iraq, while false, cements your standing among Warrior Conservatives, who feared the president was going defeat-monkey on them. (papundit: See my previous post on the unfounded accusation that Santorum was lying about WMDs in Iraq.) 

But what of the Moralist Conservatives? Your creds are high, but they need a feeding, lest some be tempted to defect to RPC.

Abortion is a no-gainer, but we do see an opening with homophobia. (papundit: Note how Ferrick claims abortion is a no-gainer. Both Santorum and Casey are pro-life, but only Santorum can be counted on to vote for a pro-life Supreme Court nominee. Casey claimed that he would have voted for Alito, but his supporters in the Democratic leadership have assured party activists that Casey would be a consistent vote for judicial filibusters. The exact quotation was: “Everyone was assured that Casey was going to hang tough with us on reproductive rights and judges,” says a Democratic leadership staffer.” Casey can’t have it both ways.Either Casey is pro-life and will oppose a judicial filibuster or he has falsely claimed he will stand with the abortion-rights wings of the Democratic Party to block pro-life candidates. Does Ferrick really think pro-lifers are dumb enough to vote for a “pro-life” candidate who will cooperate in Democratic efforts to block pro-life judges from getting an up-or-down vote?)

We propose that you offer a constitutional amendment to ban gay dating on “slippery slope” grounds, namely that it could lead to gay engagement and gay marriage.

The news release would have you say: “We need to nip this in the bud on a national level before we are confronted with a wave of gay engagement showers and gay bridal registries.”

Among moderates/independents, you could take a softer line, saying: “I’m just trying to prevent a tragic epidemic of gay divorce.” (papundit: Ferrick shows his elitism with this argument. According to a recent ABC poll, 58% of Americans do not support gay marriage. To Ferrick, the only explanation for this belief is homophobia. He implies that 58% of Americans are bigots. By doing so, he ignores concerns about judicial activism or religious liberty. Instead, he trivializes the issue by talking about gay engagement showers.) 

These steps, we are convinced, will help you defeat RPC in the GE.

Otherwise, you will be DOA.

Tom Ferrick's recent column in the Philadelphia Inquirer was an open letter to Senator Rick Santorum. Ferrick writes that: 

"Your assertion last week that there are, in fact, WMDs in Iraq, while false, cements your standing among Warrior Conservatives…."

Santorum quoted from a declassified report describing artillery shells loaded with chemical weapons that have been found in Iraq since the liberation.

So why does Ferrick say that his claim that there are WMDs in Iraq is false?

• Is it because he doesn't consider chemical weapons to be weapons on mass destruction?
• Is it because he thinks we've finally found them all?
• Is it because, as some have said, "These weren't the WMDs we were looking for"?
• Is it because they were older "degraded" munitions that may not have worked as originally designed, and only fresh, full-potency chemical weapons count? (If that's the case, does America's nuclear arsenal count as WMDs, given that we haven't been able to test our degrading nuclear arms for many years?)

I would appreciate some clarification.

Santorum and Hoekstra have offered proof about WMDs in Iraq. Yet Ferrick offers no proof for his claim that Santorum's "assertion last week that there are, in fact, WMDs in Iraq" is "false"? Santorum shared a declassified report, but we're just supposed to take Ferrick's word for it that Santorum is lying?

Casey is pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, and Santorum is against amnesty for illegal immigrants. The Santorum campaign has been running radio ads exposing Casey's pro-amnesty position. As the popular support for Geno's Cheesesteaks demonstrates, a pro-amnesty position is not popular even in a Democratic stronghold like Philadelphia. Perhaps this is why the Casey campaign has decided to strike back against Santorum by running the following ad:

 

“On his English language website, Santorum talks tough. But on his Spanish language website, Rick Santorum is soft. Rick Santorum is not only talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's doing it in two different languages. That shouldn't be a surprise from a guy who tried to fool us about where he lives.”

Let's evaluate this ad on two key points: truth and relevance.

Truth: Casey's claim isn't true, but it would be impossible for anyone who does not know Spanish to compare the websites and disprove Casey's claim. I know both languages and have confirmed that Santorum's English language website matches the Spanish language website. A recent article by the Philadelphia Inquirer also confirmed that the Spanish language website matched the English language website. (See my posts on this subject- here.) Also, Casey is repeating a disproven lie about Santorum's PA residency. (See my posts on this subject- here.) It is also suspicious that Casey would repeat the residency lie since he strongly denied any connection with the two Democratic activists who trespassed on Santorum's property in order to peek into the windows and report to the Post-Gazette that they didn't think Santorum lived there.

Relevance: Do voters really care about how quickly the Santorum campaign can translate the English website content into Spanish? Judging by the number of articles about Santorum's Spanish website, the media thinks so. Yet the same reporters who insist that Santorum's Spanish website is a big deal tell us that immigration is not a "big issue" in PA.

Here's a typical example of that kind of reporting (my bolds and comments inline):

 

(KDKA) PITTSBURGH Both Republican Rick Santorum and Democrat Bob Casey were in Pittsburgh today and there's one issue that's getting most of the attention and it may surprise you.

KDKA Political Editor Jon Delano reports illegal immigration is not exactly a red-hot issue in this part of the country, or even in this part of Pennsylvania, but Senator Rick Santorum thinks it may help him win reelection. (papundit: If Jon Delano thinks immigration is not a red-hot issue, where's his proof? Let's see the poll numbers. How many American citizens support amnesty for illegal immigrants? How many American citizens think our porous borders could enable terrorists to enter the country? Or am I just supposed to take Jon Delano's word for it? After all, he's supposed to be an impartial journalist. Most readers wouldn't take the time to do a thorough Google search in order to discover that Jon Delano was the Chief of Staff for Rep. Doug Walgreen, the incumbent Rick Santorum defeated in his first run for Congress.)

That's because he's taken a tough stand against any bill that would offer citizenship to any of the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States. And, he says, that's what Pennsylvanians want. (papundit: Why should 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants be rewarded for breaking the law? Why should they get to cut in line ahead of the people who wait to enter the country legally? Does Jon Delano really believe most Pennsylvanians would support amnesty? See my other posts on immigration- here.)

“I've heard more about this issue than any other issue we've dealt with in years,” said Santorum.

Here in Western Pennsylvania, the issue of illegal immigration may not seem to be particularly high on the radar screen but Santorum is making it a center-piece in his campaign for reelection. (papundit: Delano insinuates that Santorum is out of touch by making an issue nobody cares about a center-piece in his reelection campaign.)

In a new Santorum campaign ad, Santorum states: “Some today enter this country with more sinister intentions. That's why I fought so hard to add thousands of guards to beef up our borders and add high-tech surveillance. To do anything less is dangerous and an insult to those who came to America following the rules.”

But Santorum's opponent, Democrat Bob Casey, has fired back with his own radio commercial, accusing Santorum of, well, hypocrisy.

In the ad, Casey states: “On his English language website, Santorum talks tough. But on his Spanish language website, Rick Santorum is soft. Rick Santorum is not only talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's doing it in two different languages. That shouldn't be a surprise from a guy who tried to fool us about where he lives.” (papundit: Two lies in one ad. Yet Delano does not challenge Casey's assertion. He does not note anywhere in the article that the English and Spanish websites have the same message on amnesty. Nor does he note that Santorum is a legal resident of PA and that the Post-Gazette's accusation Santorum didn't live in PA was disproved when a prank postcard was delivered to Santorum and reported about in the Philadelphia Inquirer.)

Casey says Santorum's campaign ads are a cover-up for his votes against those who hire illegals and strengthening the borders.

“Unfortunately, with him, he's voted seven times against it,” said Casey.

But Santorum says Casey favors amnesty, and adds, “I think that's why you see my opponent fire back and use extraneous votes that have no real consequences to try and muddy the water.”

Casey responds. “Senator Santorum is continually trying to distract attention away from his 98 percent voting record with the president, to anything but his voting record.” (papundit: Note how Delano gives more space to Casey's accusations than to Santorum's comments. Delano prints Casey's charge that Santorum's ads are a cover-up, but he introduces Santorum's comment on amnesty as if it were unrelated. Delano never questions whether Casey's ad is an attempt to distract voters from his support of amnesty by raising two irrelevant and unproven accusations.)

Casey says that issues like health care and families are really more important than illegal immigration but Santorum says the immigration issue is one of playing by the rules. (papundit: Delano makes the paraphrased remarks appear parallel– as if Casey and Santorum were both answering the same question. According to this logic, Casey cares about "families," but Santorum is concerned about "playing by the rules." Unless you truly believe that- if asked- Rick Santorum would say that he cares more about illegal immigration than "families," this type of sentence structure is dishonest and demonstrates either bias or sloppy reporting.)

With the media campaign getting into gear, you can expect a lot more back and forth in the 20 weeks left in this campaign.

 

Good letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer yesterday:

Bigger issue at Geno's

The Geno's "speak English" event is a great American story, but it also points out how distracted we can be from the real problem. I believe Joey Vento's little sign expresses his frustration of a much larger issue: the illegal, or to be politically correct, undocumented worker and our leaders' lack of action. Two blocks from Geno's, Inquirer writer Gaiutra Bahadur interviewed two Mexicans ("The World Weighs In," June 14) who refused to give their last names because they are here illegally, living in our city, their children enjoying an education and possibly health care.

To add some cheese to this meaty event, I haven't read of much anger directed to the real culprit of the problem – politicians in Washington who have dropped the ball on this big security issue and stand by as we fight among ourselves. Many of us should take our heads out of the sand instead of drawing lines in it and express our anger to our leaders for letting Americans down. Vento has encouraged me to take America's security seriously.

Stephen Dreher

Philadelphia

The Geno's Cheesesteak Issue has touched such a nerve because immigration is a "big issue" in PA despite contrary claims by the Philadelphia Daily News. (See my post on those claims- "More proof that amnesty for illegal immigrants is a 'big issue' in PA" ). The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed illegal immigrants for its story on Geno's and even gave them the last quotation in the article as well– a chance to endorse Pat's over Geno's.

The way the Philadelphia Inquirer explains Santorum's visit to Geno's Cheesesteaks is also telling (my comments inline):

The senator's strange move, not formally announced to the media, seemed to signal his determination to continue using the raging immigration controversy as a means to close the gap with his Democratic election rival, state treasurer Bob Casey Jr. Most polls have shown Casey with a double-digit lead over the two-term incumbent. (papundit: So having a snack without telling the media first is a "strange move"? Does Casey issue a press release on every meal? And the Inquirer also portrays Santorum's comments on immigration as political opportunism rather than an attempt to educate voters about Casey's pro-amnesty stance.)

Santorum recently aired TV ads charging that Casey had "joined with Ted Kennedy and other liberals in supporting a bill that grants amnesty to millions who've entered our country illegally… . That's just not fair." Casey has said the commercial distorts his position. (papundit: The Philadelphia Inquirer does not challenge Casey's assertion. Instead it prints it as fact, which would make Santorum look like a liar if the reader didn't know that the bill Casey said he'd vote for really does support amnesty for illegal immigrants.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a record of printing Casey's claims without question. This is evident in a front-page article about Geno's and Santorum:

"We think Joe Vento has the right to run his business as he pleases, but we're guessing he doesn't know about Rick Santorum's hypocritical record on illegal immigration," said Saul Shorr, a Casey consultant. (papundit: I'm guessing Joe Vento wouldn't agree with Casey's pro-amnesty position on illegal immigration either.)

….The Casey campaign also points to what was, until corrected recently, contradictory language on Santorum's Web site on the issue: In Spanish, he favored "balance," and in English, he decried "amnesty." (papundit: Casey's strategy is to repeat a lie so frequently that people mistake it for fact. The "controversy" on Santorum's Spanish website is a great example. Even though the website is updated, Casey continues to use it as a political issue. He continues to claim Santorum was intentionally distorting his message on the Spanish site to pander to pro-amnesty Spanish-speaking voters. Yet it is Casey who said he'd vote for amnesty in order to pander to that same group of pro-amnesty Spanish-speaking voters and is now whining that Santorum's ads are pointing that out. See my other posts on this issue: "Casey's Spanish Language Website" and "Double Standard Watch: Spanish Campaign Websites.")

I wrote yesterday about the media blackout on the WMD discovery in Iraq. The New York Times– supposedly the paper of record– did not cover the WMD discovery on 6/22. Perhaps they needed more time to invent reasons why this isn't news. 

Today the New York Times finally covered the WMD announcement. The article's title implied WMD hadn't been found- "For Diehards, Search for Iraq's W.M.D. Isn't Over."  The NY Times makes a key logic error. They confuse the White House’s previous announcement that the hunt for WMD was over with a concession that WMD did not exist in Iraq at the start of the war (e.g. "Bush lied, people died"). The first line of the article reads:

"The United States government abandoned the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq long ago." 

It continues:

"More than a year after the White House, at considerable political cost, accepted the intelligence agencies' verdict that Mr. Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990's, these Americans have an unshakable faith that the weapons continue to exist.

The proponents include some members of Congress. Two Republicans, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania held a news conference on Wednesday to announce that, as Mr. Santorum put it, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

 The New York Times does its best to dismiss the evidence of WMD and to make believers look like kooks:

"American intelligence officials hastily scheduled a background briefing for the news media on Thursday to clarify that. Hoekstra and Mr. Santorum were referring to an Army report that described roughly 500 munitions containing "degraded" mustard or sarin gas, all manufactured before the 1991 gulf war and found scattered through Iraq since 2003.

Such shells had previously been reported and do not change the government conclusion, the officials said."

Really? Why wouldn't this change the government conclusion? The government accepted that "Hussein destroyed his stockpiles in the 1990s," yet a stockpile of WMDs was found in 2003. If Hussein had destroyed his stockpile, those WMDs wouldn't have existed in 2003. The New York Times is careful to call the 500 munitions degraded, but they do not note that these degraded WMDs would be deadly if released in an American city. Nor do they note that Hussein could have sold these munitions to terrorist groups eager to inflict casualties on American civilians. 

Despite evidence to the contrary, The New York Times continues to defend the Duelfer report (my bold and comments inline):

The authoritative postwar weapons intelligence was gathered by the Iraq Survey Group, whose 1,200 members spent more than a year searching suspected chemical, biological and nuclear sites and interviewing Iraqis. 

The final report of the group, by Charles A. Duelfer, special adviser on Iraqi weapons to the C.I.A., concluded that any stockpiles had been destroyed long before the war and that transfers to Syria were "unlikely." (papundit: 500 munitions of mustard and sarin gas were not destroyed before the war.) 

"We did not visit every inch of Iraq," Mr. Duelfer said in an interview. "That would have been impossible. We did not check every rumor that came along." (papundit: It is quite possible that WMDs are still hidden in Iraq- perhaps in those inches not visited by Duelfer.  If these WMDs were to fall into the hands of insurgents or terrorists, it could result in severe casualties. Putting our heads in the sand and denying the existence of WMDs will not protect us.) 

But he said important officials in Mr. Hussein's government, with every incentive to win favor with the Americans by exposing stockpiles, convinced him that the weapons were gone.

Mr. Duelfer said he remained open to new evidence. (papundit: Is the New York Times open to new evidence as well? Time will tell.) 

 

OpinionJournal's Best of the Web today commented on media hysteria over global warming:

"Saving the Planet
From an Associated Press dispatch on CNN.com:
The Bush administration has maintained that the threat [of "global warming"] is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy– 2:24)

The text in parentheses is inserted by CNN. You've gotta love that editorializing about "saving the planet"–and if you click through to the video link, you'll find the only lawmakers it shows are Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom are in favor of costly "solutions" to "global warming."

A little-publicized ABC News poll suggests that Americans are not buying this media hysteria over global warming. Although 59% tell the pollsters they are "convinced global warming [is] under way," only 33% "think it will affect [their] own life" and 38% "favor immediate government action."

Why haven't journalists trumpeted poll results like these as loudly as they do when surveys show regrets about the liberation of Iraq? But the question answers itself."

I can't count the number of times I've heard on the news that the American people were misled into the Iraq war by faulty intelligence that there were weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. On 6/21, Senator Santorum and Representative Hoeskstra revealed the existence of WMD in Iraq:

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) announced Wednesday the discovery of more than 500 munitions or weapons of mass destruction, specifically "sarin- and mustard-filled projectiles," in Iraq.

Reading from unclassified portions of a document developed by the U.S. intelligence community, Santorum said, "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

According to Santorum, "That means in addition to the 500, there are filled and unfilled munitions still believed to exist within the country."

Will such strong proof change the way the press is covering the war in Iraq? Judging from the lack of mainstream press coverage of Santorum and Hoeskstra's WMD discovery, I'm not going to hold my breathe while I wait for the "Bush lied, people died" crowd to admit they were wrong. Neither is Hugh Hewitt:

Because Senator Santorum is in a re-election battle, the immediate reaction of the Beltway press corps was to dismiss this announcement as little more than a campaign stunt, a reaction that ignores Hoekstra's involvement as well as his and Santorum's long push for more transparency regarding Iraq from the intelligence community.

Some usual suspects –anonymous of course– were called by Washington Post and other reporters, and the announcement filed under the "doesn't matter" category, where it will remain unless the Administration wants more information to surface.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and many other newspapers chose not to report the WMD find in their 6/22 edition. Today I found an article on WMD on FOX News and the Washington Times but not on CNN or the New York Times. Instead the New York Times ran an article- "G.O.P Decides to Embrace War as Issue."

Hotair.com reported on the media blackout:

To be sure, the MSM at least gives the appearance that it is taking no chances that this story will change anyone’s mind on the war or on the President. One would think that a Senator reading from a declassified report on the Senate floor that our forces found 500 artillery shells containing deadly chemicals might be considered in some quarters to be news. The New York Times doesn’t even mention it. And even more curiously, the Washington Post buried the story by their national security correspondent Dafna Linzer on Page 10 (I wonder when the last time Linzer had his byline buried that deep in the paper?).

Often people assume media bias is just about how a story is written. This is one form of bias, but it is also the least subtle. Bias in a printed article inspires angry readers to write letters to the editor. But bias revealed by not reporting (or by burying deep in the paper) news unfavorable to a paper's political slant is a more common form of bias since it can be exercised with impunity. Just think about it: how often have you read a letter to the editor complaining about a story that wasn't printed?