Roger Simon has some depressing thoughts on press partisanship, and (what he hopes isn’t) the coming end of the Enlightenment:

As one who is fundamentally disinterested in whether one is a Democrat or a Republican – or even a liberal or a conservative, since those terms have been reduced to intellectual rubble – I found what Glenn wrote terrifyingly dark. Because even though I don’t much care any longer for political parties – they come and go and rename themselves, etc. – I care passionately about the Enlightenment, free speech, separation of church and state, freedom of assembly and the rest of that short but delicate list that makes life decent in the West.

And I agree with the commenters. I don’t think that Glenn was saying it was a good argument for electing a Democrat as president–just that it was the best one.

Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?

After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.

Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.

The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”

Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”

I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.

Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?

After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.

Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.

The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”

Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”

I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.

Who ever heard of Arrowhead Ripper? Is he a rapper?

After getting some initial front-page treatment in major U.S. newspapers, the story was pushed back to page 18 in the Washington Post Thursday and Page 10 in The New York Times on Friday. The Los Angeles Times ran a front pager Thursday, then nothing.

Meanwhile, NPR radio this week highlighted U.S. soldiers’ deaths during the assaults, with nary a mention of the bigger context for the soldiers’ sacrifices.

The Associated Press’ dispatches focused on U.S. casualties: “U.S. military says 15 American troops killed in last 48 hours.” CNN ran with: “12 U.S. troops killed in Iraq in 48 hours.” The New York Times headline read: “14 U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq in 2 Days.”

Surprisingly, only Reuters seemed to get what was going on. Its headline said: “U.S. troops set trap for militants near Baghdad.”

I can imagine that if these folks were covering Iwo Jima, the focus would be on the number of US casualties, not whether or not we were taking the beach, or advancing up the hill, or killing the enemy in far greater numbers.

That is, those who are wondering why anyone would think that the BBC is biased against the US (and against the West in general). Why would they want to know about allied troop movements in the current offensive? Surely not to publicize them, and tip off the enemy?

In today’s Wall Street Journal, an editorial applauded the Supreme Court for ruling in Credit Suisse v. Billing that investors could not sue investment banks under anti-trust law. They like Justice Stevens’s concurring opinion:

After the initial purchase, the prices of newly issued stocks or bonds are determined by competition among the vast multitude of other securities traded in a free market. To suggest that an underwriting syndicate can restrain trade in that market by manipulating the terms of [initial public offerings] (IPOs) is frivolous.

This is a red herring. If the underwriting syndicate can get super normal profits through commissions during the IPO, subsequent trading is moot.

The main finding in the Breyer Opinion (6 joining, 1 concurring, 1 abstaining and 1 dissenting):

In sum, an antitrust action in this context is accompanied by a substantial risk of injury to the securities markets and by a diminished need for antitrust enforcement to address anticompetitive conduct. Together these considerations indicate a serious conflict between application of the antitrust laws and proper enforcement of the securities law.

I agree that there is a fundamental conflict between Justice and/or FTC pursuing anti-trust claims and SEC regulating securities. But this is not saying that there should be no anti-trust enforcement. SEC should enforce anti-trust laws.

Here’s what they can expect to reap.

Continue reading Disecting Supreme Court IPO Decision →

I’ve said this many times before, but apparently it needs to be chronically restated. What most people object to in media is not the biased reporting per se, but biased reporting masquerading as objectivity. We’d just like a little truth in advertising, but too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias. Even when their own organization points it out.

I’ve said this many times before, but apparently it needs to be chronically restated. What most people object to in media is not the biased reporting per se, but biased reporting masquerading as objectivity. We’d just like a little truth in advertising, but too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias. Even when their own organization points it out.

I’ve said this many times before, but apparently it needs to be chronically restated. What most people object to in media is not the biased reporting per se, but biased reporting masquerading as objectivity. We’d just like a little truth in advertising, but too many liberal reporters are unable to even see their own bias. Even when their own organization points it out.

Who apparently don’t know what the word “elite” means (as in Saddam’s “elite Republican Guard”). Or maybe it’s all just relative. Donald Sensing explains. Why do they do this? It can’t be simple cluelessness, because somehow, the cluelessness always ends up going in a certain direction.

David Blue also makes a good point in comments: that armies win battles, but people or nations win wars. And it’s very hard to win a war when half the people in the country don’t even really believe that we’re in one, and/or believe that their own government is the enemy.