Order your posters, and support the Media Violence Project.

They need our help. It’s time to get them the treatment they need and deserve.

…at least not to the AP:

Romney did better among more conservative voters, while McCain and Paul each got about one in five moderates, who made up about 20 percent of the electorate.

OK, what kind of a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul? I can’t think of any position that he takes that could be considered “moderate.” He’s what most people would call an extremist^*. If someone called themselves a “moderate,” or someone whom the AP would call a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul then the word has no meaning whatsoever.

And frankly, I find people who call themselves “moderate” to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither “liberal” or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can’t draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than “moderate.”

* Not that there’s anything wrong with that–so am I, on many issues. I’m just (as I think that Glenn Reynolds once said of himself) an eclectic one.

…at least not to the AP:

Romney did better among more conservative voters, while McCain and Paul each got about one in five moderates, who made up about 20 percent of the electorate.

OK, what kind of a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul? I can’t think of any position that he takes that could be considered “moderate.” He’s what most people would call an extremist^*. If someone called themselves a “moderate,” or someone whom the AP would call a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul then the word has no meaning whatsoever.

And frankly, I find people who call themselves “moderate” to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither “liberal” or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can’t draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than “moderate.”

* Not that there’s anything wrong with that–so am I, on many issues. I’m just (as I think that Glenn Reynolds once said of himself) an eclectic one.

…at least not to the AP:

Romney did better among more conservative voters, while McCain and Paul each got about one in five moderates, who made up about 20 percent of the electorate.

OK, what kind of a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul? I can’t think of any position that he takes that could be considered “moderate.” He’s what most people would call an extremist^*. If someone called themselves a “moderate,” or someone whom the AP would call a “moderate” would vote for Ron Paul then the word has no meaning whatsoever.

And frankly, I find people who call themselves “moderate” to generally be people with no firm or coherent political principles whatsoever. All it really means is that they are neither “liberal” or conservative, so the media types find them difficult to pigeonhole. And given the large number of possibilities of positions one can have without being in either of those media pigeonholes, that means that we can’t draw any conclusions whatsoever about them. We need a different word for such people than “moderate.”

* Not that there’s anything wrong with that–so am I, on many issues. I’m just (as I think that Glenn Reynolds once said of himself) an eclectic one.

Iowahawk has stolen my schtick:

Unrelated incidents, or mounting evidence of that America’s newsrooms have become a breeding ground for murderous, drunk, gun-wielding child molesters? Answers are elusive, but the ever-increasing toll of violent crimes committed by journalists has led some experts to warn that without programs for intensive mental health care, the nation faces a potential bloodbath at the hands of psychopathic media vets.

“These people could snap at any minute,” says James Treacher of the Treacher Institute for Journalist Studies. “We need to get them the help and medication they need before it’s too late.”

I think that we need to set up a national data base so we can know whether or not one lives in our neighborhood. Anyway, we know that the brutality of covering a war that’s being inexplicably won can cause many to snap.

Ralph Peters is less than impressed (to put it gently) with the New York Times and its apparent war against veterans:

in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.

The purpose of Sunday’s instantly notorious feature “alerting” the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as “unclean” – as the new lepers who can’t be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

Anyone want to make book on whether there’s anything resembling even a recognition of how egregious this was (forget about an actual apology) from the “public editor”?

I had never noticed this quote on the masthead of USS Neverdock before:

“America is often portrayed as an ignorant, unsophisticated sort of place, full of bible bashers and ruled to a dangerous extent by trashy television, superstition and religious bigotry, a place lacking in respect for evidence based knowledge. I know that is how it is portrayed because I have done my bit to paint that picture…” BBC’s Washington correspondent Justin Webb

From an interview with the Grauniad. This explains why some commenters here are both clueless and arrogantly certain in their (lack of) knowledge. I won’t name names, but if the shoe fits, they might consider a little more humility.

I’m listening to the Republican debate, and wondering why they put up with this bullshit (yes, I don’t use that word often on this family…sort of… blog) from the MSM. Why do they allow Democrat media types to frame their debate?

The most egregious case of this is the question that just came up–why shouldn’t people vote for Barack Obama?

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD ANY REPUBLICAN CARE ABOUT THIS QUESTION IN A REPUBLICAN DEBATE?

Romney responded with a bunch of blather that had little to do with the question, and Thompson came up next. I was disappointed.

It was a “I’m not doing no hand shows” moment, and he blew it.

The first words out of his mouth should have been, “Let me preface my answer with the statement that this is a foolish question for a debate that only Republicans are really interested in. It might be a perfectly fine question a few months from now, in a general election, if Obama in fact becomes the candidate, and I (or one of these other gentlemen) are debating him, but Republicans, or at least smart ones (and I don’t know that many dumb ones) don’t care why I or anyone on this stage thinks that they shouldn’t vote for Barack Obama. They’re trying to pick a Republican candidate. Now, having said that,…[then go on to the response he actually gave].

But instead, he just returned to Republican principles, but I think he missed an opportunity to bash the press again, which a lot of Republican activists would have loved.

One other thought overall. Mike Huckabee is one slick-talking, two-faced socialist son of a bitch. I’ll have to go through the transcript to make the case, though. He’s a combination of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in Republican clothing.

Must be something about people who were born in Hope, Arkansas, and became governor of the state. If the campaigns of the other Republican candidates are worth anything, there is much fodder here for anti-Huckabee ads that will amply and convincingly demonstrate this.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here are some related thoughts to the latter point from Jonathan Adler (though more calm than mine, though they weren’t in the wake of the debate):

It’s interesting that Huckabee is now stressing a limited government message, as it has not been a significant part of his platform up until now. Rather this is a guy who celebrates farm subsidies, disavows free trade, and likes the idea of a national smoking ban, and his campaign manager has disparaged the limited government ideology that motivates many Republicans in New Hampshire and elsewhere. That he can deliver such a message effectively is no surprise

At The Lancet. This isn’t really new news–anyone with half a brain who looked at the study carefully at the time (i.e., not all-too-credulous journalists) could see that it was a nonsensical statistical mess. But the case against it is looking even stronger now.

Of course, it fulfilled its political purpose–to damage the Republicans and the Bush administration in the 2006 elections. And when it comes to righteous moral crusades like that, accuracy and scientific integrity be damned.

Fred Thompson says that journalists lack fire in the belly.

(Can we please retire that idiotic cliche now?)

Well, it was inevitable that it would come to this, given how badly broken our journalism system is.