It's Not Liberal Bias, It's Fascistic

A wonderful motivational speaker by the name of Jim Rohn once said the following: "I used to start my day by reading the paper - can you believe that?"

His point was, the news was always so negative that by the time he'd finished, he wasn't exactly motivated to have a blockbuster day, because the paper makes you feel like killing yourself might be a better option.

Mr. Rohn's words came back to me today full force as I read one hideously negative story after another. And it wasn't bad enough that the news was negative, most of the stories were purposely distorted to make them even more negative.

And they weren't just news, by the way, they were often the writer's opinion of the news, and not so subtly stated.

And as always, those opinions reflected a liberal bias. If that weren't bad enough, the bias was exclusionary with a tone that "you'd better hold this opinion yourself, and I hope there comes a day when you'll be forced to."

The bias is wide ranging, including everything from an opinion of the frivolous (or what should be frivolous) comments of Don Imus, to the serious - the state of the economy, the Iraq war, the President, to the outrageously preposterous global warming hysteria.

You want specifics? OK, but you're killing me.

Regarding Imus, the news is about his pending suit against CBS. But in reporting on it, an AP "reporter" wrote the following:

"CBS Radio and MSNBC had delay buttons, but didn't use them when Imus made racist and sexist comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team, lawyer Martin Garbus said on ABC's 'Good Morning America'."

Do you see what's wrong there? I don't blame you if you don't. Notice the "Martin Garbus said" part - because what's attributed to him is not a quote, it's the writer's characterization, and if that weren't bad enough, it contains the miserable scum's opinion of whatever Mr. Garbus was apparently referring to -  it was racist and sexist.

Of course we know Imus' lawyer didn't used those words to describe Mr. Imus' remarks. Not only would he be a pretty bad lawyer if he did, but the comments Imus made were neither racist nor sexist. They were mildly insulting to be sure, but that's all.

Contrast that with another article I came upon next where a talk show host in Milwaukee said and subsequently reiterated that he was glad that the mother of a rival show's host had died of smoke inhalation in a house fire.

The article didn't mention (of course it wouldn't, would it?) any details about the person who made the comment - black, white, liberal, conservative, or even any information that might have given some perspective and background to the "sentiment."

By the way, the talk show guy's comment gave me fond memories of a forum game I used to play where I'd post a story, and because articles never, ever tell you anymore, I'd ask at the end, "Black or not Black?

And why am I certain my old fiend... er friend... Matthue would call that racist? So I'll say it again - the worst bigots and the biggest haters by far are on the left, both blatant and subtle, usually frothing. But of course, there's no bigger hater of liberals than I. I'm fair and balanced though since there's also no bigger hater of President Bush than myself, he says proudly.

Anyway, what really got me off on the wrong foot today, was the first story I read because the title intrigued me:"Jobless rate rises as hiring slows."

Sounds bad, doesn't it? Well, not nearly as bad as the writer tried to portray it. Unfortunately for him, it's hard to do that when the actual numbers don't give you cover. And haven't you found that when a headline or a comment sounds too good or bad to be true, it, ten times out of nine, isn't? And that they are almost always written by a raging liberal?

So let's go to the report and see for ourselves, shall we?

WASHINGTON - The nation's unemployment rate edged up to 4.5 percent in April as cautious employers added the fewest new jobs in more than two years, signaling that the labor market is starting to feel some of the strain of the sluggish economy.

Edged? That's right, last month the rate was 4.4 and it's skyrocketed a tenth of a percent. And it did so why? Because "cautious" employers were feeling the pinch of the "sluggish" economy.

Now every single person who knows anything at all about this stuff realizes that the unemployment rate has never been lower for as far back as most can remember, and what's more amazing is that it got this low in a SLUGGISH ECONOMY! "Can you imagine how low it would be if only the economy was roaring along," liberals ask frenetically?

Get this from the gloom and doom article: "payrolls GREW by JUST 88,000 last month as job LOSSES SPREAD beyond manufacturing and construction and into retailing and financial services. Workers' paycheck (sic) also GREW more SLOWLY.

What a dastardly devious President we have, eh?

And of course this commentary wouldn't be complete without a global warming report. The headline for that article was a beauty as well:

Report: Climate change plan affordable

Affordable? As in, it's gonna cost you, but you can handle it? I'm telling you, if you consider yourself a conservative and you subscribe to this warming nonsense even a little bit, I hate you too. That's because you're contributing to attempts to lower the quality of life of Americans, and thus the quality of life for everyone on the planet. That's right, you're complicit in hindering the poorest or the poor from having a chance, just as your ancestors were decades ago if they helped facilitate the banning of DDT.

So what did we learn today about the affordable ways to stem the Earth's hot flashes? "Delegates from 120 countries approved the first roadmap for stemming greenhouse gas emissions."

Are you glad they're looking after the planet while you're just out there trying to scrape by? Well, then you'll be pleased that they came up with an affordable array of stuff "that must be rushed into place to avert a disastrous spike in global temperatures."

Got it? Then JUST DO IT! Was the conference sponsored by Nike? Don't think about it, there isn't time. Don't question it, the facts are in.

And by all means, don't try to stop them.

Because they're doing it for your own good. If they left you to your own devices, you'd never buy a light bulb that costs twenty times as much as incandescent but saves five times as much energy and requires an environmental permit to clean up if you break one.

I'm thinking of a song by a liberal's liberal - Those were the good old days..Because if we don't act NOW, tomorrow we face "a sharp rise in temperatures that scientists say would wipe out species, raise ocean levels, wreak economic havoc and trigger droughts in some places and flooding in others."

And who needs that? I bet the unemployment rate would soar to 4.8!?!

Well, after reading the morning "paper," the only thing that could make today worse would be if this were "Take A Liberal To Lunch Day."